RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

Ross,

I have worked as a consultant with Afilias since its inception when I help
put together the original 18 registrar shareholders. I have also worked with
.coop and .aero in identifying registrars to provide registrar services in
their respective TLDs. I really have no idea of what proprietary information
that registries have regarding the operation of your business.

The only documents that a registry maintains on a registrar: are names of
employees to contact (some/most of these names are publicly available on the
ICANN web site); signed copies of confidentiality agreements and Registry
Registrar Agreements (these documents are publicly available); how much
money the registrar wishes to keep in his account (all one really needs to
do is look at the registrars quarterly payments to ICANN or one of the
industry reports and figure the number domains and multiple by the registry
fee); insurance documents (minimum terms are publicly available); and thats
about it.

The purpose of the structural separation between VRSN registry/registrar was
to prevent the registry from tipping its hat toward new technology
developments and pricing advantages. This structural separation was
critically important to provide registrars a level playing field to compete
and one of the reasons why in the last contract negotiations we required 90
day notice prior to any technical changes as a result of the IDN role out.

In the case of PersonalNames I agree that if GNR provides any type of
competitive advantage to PersonalNames that would be a violation of their
Registry contract that should result in termination of their contract.
However, excluding their participation in the registrar constituency would
potentially require all Afilias shareholders to step down, Melbourne IT
because of their interest in NeuStar, Register.com because of their interest
in RegistryPro.

Just trying to address your concerns because I believe the PersonalNames/GNR
is not much different from NetworkSolutions/VRSN. However, I do agree with a
number of registrars that it is clearly in appropriate for the registrar to
tout its relationship with the registry in the website advertising. That
should come down immediately in my humble opinion.

Just some thoughts,

Mike





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:02 AM
> To: 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
>
>
> Michael,
>
> The motion does not preclude participation in the constituency because
> of participation in another constituency, it precludes participation by
> an individual who may be in possession of, or come into possession of,
> sensitive information regarding the operation of my business.
>
>
>
>                        -rwr
>
>
>
>
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> idiot."
> - Steven Wright
>
> Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/blog
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 9:59 AM
> > To: Ross Wm. Rader; registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
> >
> >
> > Ross,
> >
> > One other concern that I want to raise is that under Article
> > X, Section 5, paragraph 3 of the ICANN by-laws, "No
> > individual or entity shall be excluded from participation in
> > a Constituency merely because of participation in another
> > Constituency."
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 9:03 AM
> > > To: registrars@dnso.org
> > > Subject: Re: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
> > >
> > >
> > > I would like to formally move that any representative of any ICANN
> > > recognized gTLD registry in the possession of or with access to
> > > registry Proprietary Information
> > > (http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-06ma
> > > r01.htm#A-
> > > 3.1 in the case of GNR) or Registry Sensitive Information
> > > (http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-06ma
> > > r01.htm#A-
> > > 3.2 also in the case of GNR) not be permitted to
> > participate in this
> > > constituency at any level, in any capacity, for a period of
> > one year
> > > since the last receipt of such information and that our by-laws be
> > > amended to reflect this.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Ross Wm. Rader
> > > Tucows Inc.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
> > > To: <registrars@dnso.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 8:26 AM
> > > Subject: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
> > >
> > >
> > > > As PersonalNames is now an ICANN accredited registrar they are
> > > eligible to
> > > > subscribe to the registrar mailing list, and they have asked to
> > > be added.
> > > To
> > > > date PersonalNames has not paid any membership dues so it is
> > > not eligible
> > > to
> > > > vote in any constituency matters.
> > > >
> > > > Yesterday there were several posts asking the Registrar Executive
> > > Committee
> > > > to schedule a call with PersonalNames. Although the Executive
> > > > Committee stands ready to assist the constituency in this
> > matter, I
> > > > believe that
> > > some
> > > > dialogue between PersonalNames and the rest of the registrar
> > > > community
> > > might
> > > > make any such call more productive.
> > > >
> > > > The only PersonalNames representative that has asked to join
> > > the registrar
> > > > mailing list to date is Hakon Haugnes.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > Michael D. Palage
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>