RE: [ga] Advantages to Option B

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Jefsey,

Please note my responses below.

Chuck (Post #4, 21 Mar 2001)

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Jefsey Morfin [mailto:jefsey@wanadoo.fr] 
Sent:	Tuesday, March 20, 2001 4:48 PM
To:	ga@dnso.org
Subject:	Re: [ga] Advantages to Option B

Dear Chuck,
Thank you again for your cooperation. I am sure our responses also serve 
VeriSign in better understanding what their market thinks. So I will look 
at the negative aspect since you proposed the positive one already.

On 13:40 20/03/01, Gomes, Chuck said:
>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)

True if development are under GNU license.

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

True if the creation rules are publicly defined and accepted. Untrue if the 
.orgNIC is a straw cover for the Staff and is used to provide that money to 
the iCANN.

>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.  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)

I am not sure the community is satisfied with the new gTLDs period.
Nor if it is satisfied them all being a cc of the other?
Nor if it is that sastified with the current contractual approach.
What I know is that VeriSIgn had not to collect and pay $ 50.000.
What I know is that to the countrary to the ccTLDs it has not to be
approved by GAC Members nor even DNSO as it should
As I stated earlier on this list, the GAC is strictly an advisory committee
not an approval authority.  Similarly, the DNSO is an advisory group and
ICANN has requested input from the DNSO NC who in turn have requested input
from the various constituencies and from the GA.

You are right it simplifies a lot the life (and lower the costs) to
VeriSIgn. In plain Telecom language this is named
crossubsidization. And the FCC fougth for years against that
anti-competition practice.

Any addition to the responsibility of VeriSIgn means a more
omnipresent involvement of VeriSIgn (give us some air to
breath please) and is in the eventual disinterest of everyone
as an anti-Trust case would dramatically impact on the
stability and the development of the network and related
industries.

>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)

Only a full separation of the shareholders would be satisfactory.

>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.

May be true. But this is to be put in context. In puting
.net and .org at the same level as .info or .museum,
the incentive is in favor of .com.
I am not aware of anything in either agreement that puts .net or .org at the
same level as .info or .museum except for the fact that the new .org
registry itself has to be a non-profit organization (5.1.4).  As far as I am
aware, neither agreement puts any restrictions on registrations.  It is true
that in correspondence separate from the agreements (Sclavos letter to Cerf)
it was indicated that .org might be for non-profit organizations only, but
in that same correspondence it clearly said that, "Among the issues to be
determined in this transition is whether .org should be limited to
registrations only by non-commercial entities, and if so, what transition
arrangements need to be established for those existing registrants that
would not qualify under that limitation. ICANN has agreed that, at a
minimum, existing registrants would be permitted to remain in the new .org
registry for one renewal cycle under its new management."  There is no such
language in the .org agreement itself and it sounds to me like the
suggestion is that these issues are still open.

>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)

The real issue is the financial forecast.
How much money will VeriSIgn make for the years to come in
Plan A and in Plan B. If VeriSign staff is cute and I think it is,
the figures of Plan B should be better than Plan A at least to
justify the expense in drafting and negotiating plan B.
I don't think any of us know what income will be generated via Plan A or
Plan B, but I would confidently predict that VeriSign could make a lot more
money off .org continuing to be the Registry through 2007 than we would
during the period through 2002 less $5M.

>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)

Probably a cute move we can object. It will still early time
for new gTLD. So stability will plead in favor of VeriSign.
It looks to me that Stratton is good at Bridge (or Poker) but
the whole scheme is a clever one.

>8. The termination clause in the .net and .org agreements is expanded to
>include several additional causes for termination.  (new-5.4, old-23)

hmmm. Do ou really want to see iCANN sueing VeriSign.
The impact on Network stability would be bad.

>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)

Not a real advantage if you consider that they will be bound
by costly DNS management technology and methods. I am
sure we can find less brillant but may be more stable solution
at a lower cost of .org. But I accept it will help transition.
More power to you if you can find a more stable solution at lower cost.  I
would suggest that building a server constellation from scratch that has the
reliability and stability of ours will be very expensive.  If I was a
registrant or a registrar, I would want the greatest reliability and
stability possible.

>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)

Why is that something concerning VeriSIgn. You keep them
or you leave them?
From a strickly VeriSign point of view, I prefer the shorter list.

>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).

True. This is a candid and clear statement. Thank you.
Now, would this be a take away ???
It is an added obligation for us, one that entails costs.

>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.)

And I am sure Stratton was just flying in the next chair :-)
Unless you would want to be expelled form VeriSign I
suppose he reviewed this or at least the spirit of it. It would be
despising for him, for you and for us if it was not this way.
You are incorrect here.  To my knowledge he has not reviewed anything I have
written on this list unless he is monitoring the list and I doubt that very
seriously.  Finally, I certainly hoped I am not expelled from VeriSign.  :)

Jefsey

--
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
--
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