Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 22:08:39 -0800, you wrote:
>On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 04:07:00PM +1300, DPF wrote:

>> No no no.  I have just reread both the original agreement and the
>> proposed change.  Under the original agreement NSI only get the
>> registry extended until November 2007. Section 22(a) provides that
>> there will be a successor registry and 22(b) merely says NSI is not to
>> be disadvantaged in tendering for this by virtue of being the
>> incumbent.
>
>Note I said "effectively".  Read 22 (e).  If NSI is not selected, they 
>can take ICANN to court.

I am aware of that.  But changing the language from a "shall not be
disadvantaged by being the incumbent"to "shall have a presumption
their contract will be renewed" is a pretty damn significant change.  

Under the existing contract, even if the registry remains with
Verisign, it means they have to sharpen their pencils enough at each
renewal so that they can have a case to argue that they should keep
it.  Merely having an open tender (even one likely to stay with the
incumbent) will encourage the incumbent to make as good an offer as
possible.

>> So let's be very clear - NSI after 2007 has to compete against other
>> entities to remain the registry.  If they can not provide the best
>> price and/or service they have agreed that they may lose the registry.
>
>fat chance.

That is in the agreement.  They can of course argue it in court but if
for example they have insisted if they have the contract renewed that
they can charge $8 per name and a competing bid said they can do it
for $3 a name then ICANN would be on fairly strong ground to go with
the competitor.

>> Now this is totally changed in the staff proposal.  D(4) states that
>> there shall be a presumption that NSI keep the *.com registry for ever
>> and ever as long as they comply with the agreements.
>
>It's a little difficult to follow, but I read that as a single renewal.  
>The contract doesn't say anything about "perpetuity".  But it is 
>legalese, and I don't know if I fully understand it.

They don't say in perpetuity"but by not having an expiry date or
maximum number of renewals, this combined with a "presumption" of
renewal will have much the same effect.

What worries me about this proposal is it is effectively a one way
step.  Sign this and ICANN have committed themselves for good - no
turning back.

>> By 2007 the *.com registry could be in the hundreds of millions and a
>> competitive tender for the registry service could see massive price
>> reductions from the current US$6.
>
>Possibly.  Another quite reasonable scenario is that robust competition
>at the registry level will have altered the DNS landscape beyond
>recognition, and .com will be a boring and passe place where all the
>good names are taken.  The fact is, you are just guessing. 

Indeed - I am well aware it could dry up.   That is why I am hesitant
about endorsing a deal with a "presumptive"right of renewal for ever.

> *No one* --
>not you, not me, not Verisign, not ICANN -- can do any more than hazard
>guesses about the competitive situation 6 years from now.  It is very
>important to keep in mind that the market share of the NSI registrar has
>suffered an amazing drop -- from 100% to like 40% in less than 2 years.

Personally I don't think it is at all amazing.  It was the whole point
of bringing in competition.  

>In any case, I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell that 
>Verisign is ever going to lose .com, under either scenario, unless they 
>want to give it up.

There we disagree.  If there was no chance of losing it under the
status quo why would they be so willing to spend literally hundreds of
millions of dollars and give away *.net and *.org so that they gain a
"presumptive"right to renew it.

>> >    I want to reiterate our willingness to see this commitment through
>> >    to its completion.  Under this commitment, on the part of both
>> >    parties, we would expect and intend to continue to operate the
>> >    Registries for .com, .net, and .org at least through 2007. 
>> >
>> >No matter what, NSI is going to keep the registry for .com for the
>> >forseeable future.  The issue is whether .org (and possibly .net, later 
>> >on) can be pried from their greedy fingers.
>> 
>> Under the current agreement they can keep all three until 2007 but
>> beyond that it is a open slather for who becomes the registry.
>
>I'm sorry, but that just seems incredibly naive to me...

I may over state that it will be quite open slather but if Verisign's
bid to keep it is significantly inferior to their competitors then
they will run that risk of losing it.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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