Re: [ga] Advantages to Option B

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Chuck and all remaining assembly members,

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> The following is Chuck Gomes' personal opinion and is not presented as a
> VeriSign position.  References to agreement sections are provided in
> parentheses; 'com' refers to the new .com agreement; 'new' refers to any of
> the new agreements for .net, .org or the new gTLDs; 'net' refers
> specifically to the new .net agreement; 'org' refers specifically to the new
> .org agreement; and 'old' refers to the existing agreements for .com, .net
> and .org.
>
> Option B Advantages to ICANN &/or the Internet Community:
>
> 1. 10-year $200M investment in research and development and infrastructure
> to increase the efficiency and stability of the .com, .net and .org
> registries and the ability of ICANN accredited registrars to access those
> registries (Sclavos letter to Cerf)

  Yes, but this is NOT in the "New Deal" contract, but only promised once
the contract is agreed to and singed.  So I don't see this as a major
benefit to the contract itself.  Second on this point, is that how these
proposed/promised moneys ($200m) are to be utilized is not
very specific, whom decides how specifically these moneys are to
be spent is also not outlined or specified, and what exactly and specifically
these moneys ar to be spent....

>
> 2. $5M contribution for the creating of a new .org registry (Sclavos letter
> to Cerf)

  Again as in your point #1, there is no specifics how how, whom, and what
this $5m is to be used for.

>
> 3. Terms for VeriSign financial support to ICANN in the .com, .net and .org
> agreements are modified to be the same as that for the new gTLD registries.
> Not only does this result in a replacement of the old fee caps but it also
> allows ICANN to greatly simplify its fee collection structure so that all
> fees are collected through registries instead of through both registries and
> registrars.

  Yes the "Caps" are effectively removed.  I don't see this as a benefit
at all...

>  This adds additional responsibility to the VeriSign Registry
> while at the same time reducing fee collection costs and increasing
> efficiency for ICANN.  (com-II.7; new-3.14; old-6)
> 4. In addition to continuing the 'fire-wall' requirements in the old
> agreement, the NSI Registrar must become a separate corporate subsidiary of
> VeriSign. (com-II.23, new-23, old-21)

  As a subsidiary, NSI Register, will still be answerable to Versign, as
Versign is the parent company.  This is hardly true separation of
registrar and registry as it relates to Versign and NSI...  Again no
real benefit here either...

>
> 5. The .net and .org agreements become essentially the same as the new gTLD
> agreements with the exception of the term and any clauses specifically
> related to the gTLDs themselves.  Note: In my opinion, these terms are
> definitely less favorable to VeriSign.
> 6. VeriSign will lose the .org TLD at the end of 2002, five years earlier
> than under the existing agreement, assuming the 4-year extension after the
> separation of the Registry and Registrar.  (org-5, old-23)
> 7. The .net TLD will be re-competed at the end of 2005, 22 months earlier
> than under the existing agreement, assuming the 4-year extension after the
> separation of the Registry and Registrar.  (net-5, old-23)
> 8. The termination clause in the .net and .org agreements is expanded to
> include several additional causes for termination.  (new-5.4, old-23)
> 9. The new .org registry will be allowed to use VeriSign Global Registry
> Services gTLD server constellation for free for one year and thereafter, if
> the new registry so desires, at a price to be determined.  (org-5.1.5)

  This is a very tiny benefit to the stakeholders, but a huge benefit to
Versign.

>
> 10. In the new .net and .org agreements, the list of possible topics for
> specifications and policies is expanded.  (new-4.2; old-3.C)
>
> Whereas some may want to debate whether or not some of the above are clearly
> advantages to the Internet community at large, in my opinion, they are all
> advantages to ICANN and are all 'take-aways' for VeriSign.  In trade for
> these 'take-aways,' which I think are very significant for VeriSign,
> VeriSign is given a clearer procedure for renewal for the .com registry
> (com-II.25) and the requirement to divest of the Registrar is removed if the
> Registrar is made a separate corporate subsidiary (com-II.23.C).

  Yes, but ICANN is supposed to represent ALL stakeholders, not just
a select few.  As such it seems fairly obvious that the benefits to Versign
and NSI are substantial, but very few of your points benefits the
broad stakeholder community, most especially .ORG Domain Name
holders.

>
>
> As already stated at the beginning, the above is based on my personal
> analysis of the old and new agreements.  (That analysis was primarily done
> in route to and from Melbourne.)
>
> P.S. - For those who are concerned about rights to data in the new
> agreements, please read the following sections: com-II.12, new-3.13,
> old-10).
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html