ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Needs clarification about Agreement between Verisign and ICANN regarding .ORG Divesture



Hi Louis:

> I believe that the text you quoted earlier is an
> explanation of the
> provisions of the (then proposed) revised
> ICANN-VeriSign registry
> agreements.

Yes, specifically the part 

D. THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

Does "the substance of the proposed amendments" made
by ICANN as stated in:

http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm
      

are still valid regarding what should be the net
results of .ORG after its divesture?

Thanks again :-)

Best Regards
Vany





> I hope this helps,
> 
> Louis Touton
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Re: [council] Needs clarification
> about Agreement between
> Verisign and  ICANN regarding .ORG Divesture]
> Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 18:40:57 -0800 (PST)
> From: Vany Martinez <vany_martinez@yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: ceo@vany.org
> To: Louis Touton <touton@icann.org>,
> council@dnso.org
> 
> Hi Louis:
> 
> Thank you for your clarification!!! 
> 
> Please, can you provide me the URL for the document
> you are citing as contractual implementation of
> .ORG?
> 
> The only texts I was able to find regarding this
> issue
> was the initial cited text of the Proposed
> Agreements
> between Verisign and ICANN that ICANN resolved to
> adopt as it is.  Please clarify me if the text I
> cited
> you in my previous e-mail is just a guideline to
> express the spirit about the goals of .ORG divesture
> as is described in such text, that both ICANN and
> Verisign envisioned?  
> 
> Just for a clarification regarding one of your
> answers:
> 
> The question about model to be used (Restricted,
> Sponsored, etc), didn't have relationship with the
> question about financial requirements. 
> 
> Thank you again for all the information you can
> provide me.
> 
> Best Regards
> Vany
> 
> --- Louis Touton <touton@icann.org> wrote:
> > Vany,
> > 
> > The contractual implementation of the .org
> turn-over is in Subsections
> > 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 of the .org Registry Agreement:
> > 
> >    5.1.4 No later than 90 days prior to the
> Expiration Date, Registry
> >    Operator will pay to ICANN or ICANN's designee
> the sum of US $5 
> >    million, to be used by ICANN in it sole
> discretion to establish an 
> >    endowment to be used to fund future operating
> costs of the non-
> >    profit entity designated by ICANN as successor
> operator of the .org 
> >    registry. Registry Operator agrees that such
> funds, once paid to 
> >    ICANN, will become the property of ICANN and/or
> ICANN's designee, 
> >    and that Registry Operator will have no
> ownership or other rights 
> >    or interests in such funds or in the manner in
> which they are used 
> >    or disbursed.
> > 
> >    5.1.5 Registry Operator further agrees that it
> will make available 
> >    to the party designated by ICANN as successor
> operator of the .org 
> >    registry the use of global resolution and
> distribution facilities, 
> >    at no charge until 31 December 2003, and
> thereafter at a price to 
> >    be determined, for so long as Registry Operator
> is also the 
> >    operator of the .com registry.
> > 
> > ("Registry Operator" refers to VeriSign in the
> above.)
> > 
> > In answer to your specific questions:
> > 
> >   1. Under the agreement, the .org TLD need not be
> either sponsored or
> > restricted in order for the US$5,000,000 to be
> used.  The money is
> > payable to ICANN for use "to fund future operating
> costs of the
> > non-profit entity designated by ICANN as successor
> operator of the .org
> > registry."  So long as these requirements are met,
> the endowment can be
> > used for the stated purpose whether the .org TLD
> is sponsored or
> > unsponsored, or to whether it is restricted or
> unrestricted.
> > 
> >   2.  The agreement does not require any
> particular level of financial
> > resources that must be required by ICANN.  The
> level of resources to be
> > shown is to be decided in the ICANN policy
> process.
> > 
> > I hope this helps.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > 
> > Louis Touton
> > 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [council] Needs clarification about
> > Agreement between Verisign
> > and ICANN regarding .ORG Divesture
> > Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 17:24:08 -0800 (PST)
> > From: Vany Martinez <vany_martinez@yahoo.com>
> > Reply-To: ceo@vany.org
> > To: council@dnso.org, touton@icann.org,
> > RCochetti@verisign.com
> > 
> > Hi Louis, Roger and all:
> > 
> > I am sure that everybody knows very well the texts
> of the actual
> > Agreements between Verisign and ICANN.
> > 
> > However, I would like a clarification regarding
> the part describing .ORG
> > Divesture (section D, number 2):
> > 
> > "2. The .org Registry Agreement would adopt the
> form of the registry
> > agreements that will be entered into by the new
> global TLD registry
> > operators. The term of the .org Registry Agreement
> would be shortened by
> > almost one year to 31 December 2002, at which time
> VeriSign would
> > permanently relinquish its right to operate the
> .org registry, and an
> > appropriate sponsoring organization representing
> non-commercial
> > organizations would be sought (through some
> procedure yet to be
> > determined) to assume the operation of the
> registry. In addition,
> > VeriSign would establish an endowment of $5
> million for the purpose of
> > funding the reasonable operating expenses of a
> global registry for the
> > specific use of non-profit organizations, and
> would make global
> > resolution resources available to the operator of
> the .org registry for
> > no charge for one year and on terms to be
> determined thereafter, for so
> > long as it operates the .com registry. The net
> result of this would be a
> > .org registry returned, after some appropriate
> transition period, to its
> > originally intended function as a registry
> operated by and for
> > non-profit organizations."
> > 
> > The questions regarding this paragraph are:
> > 
> > 1.  Does all this paragraph means that the
> agreements requires
> > obligatorily that .ORG be "SPONSORED" ("appropiate
> sponsoring
> > organization representing non-commercial
> organizations...") and also
> > that be "RESTRICTED" ("for the specific use of
> non-profit
> > organizations", "Registry operated by and for
> non-profit
> > organizations")? Please, explain why.
> > 
> > 2.  Would the applicants for being the global
> registry for .ORG need to
> > demonstrate some financial resources, although
> Verisign would stablish
> > and endowment of $5 million for the purpose of
> funding reasonable
> > operating expenses and would make some other
> technical resources
> > available for one year to no cost to whoever be
> selected sponsor
> > organization?  
> > 
> > Thank you in advance for all the information you
> can provide me.
> > 
> > Best Regards
> > Vany
> >    
> > 
> > -- 
> > Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales, BSEE
> > Information Technology Specialist
> > Sustainable Development Networking
> Programme/Panama
> > Member of the ICANN's DNSO Non-Commercial
> > Constituency
> > Tel: (507) 317-0169
> > http://www.sdnp.org.pa
> > e-mail:  vany@sdnp.org.pa
> > 
> > Are you a Non-Commercial organization and have a
> > domain name?
> > Join the ICANN's DNSO Non-Commercial Constituency,
> > ncdnhc.icann-ncc.org
> > 
> > __________________________________________________


=====
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
http://www.sdnp.org.pa e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa

Go to http://www.getpaid4.com/cgi-bin/emailpanel.cgi?userid=659401 to receive FREE newsletters via email!
Go to http://www.getpaid4.com?sheharhore to make $$$ using YOUR OWN computer and sigining subscribers in YOUR OWN emails!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>