Re: [registrars] Position Statement

[Larry Erlich <erlich@domainregistry.com>]

Beckwith, Bruce wrote:
> 
> Larry,
> 
> Thanks for the question and for being familiar with the documents.
> 
> My point in the statement below was simply to address the comments made by
> some registrars that they entered the registrar business solely because NSI
> was forced into divesting one of the two entities, registrar or registry.
> Per the 1999 agreement, divestiture is not required.  Yes, there is an
> incentive (the VeriSign Registry may continue to operate the .com, .net, and
> .org TLDs through 2007), but not a requirement.  It wasn't until recently
> (February 2001) that VeriSign announced its intent, yet these registrars
> entered the business well before the VeriSign announcement - and remember,
> there was always the possibility


You're right. Registrars should have said that
they "entered the business" or "increased investment
in their existing business "because of the "99.99% certainty 
that NSI would want to continue to earn money from the .com .org and .net
TLD's through 2007". 

Larry Erlich

http://www.DomainRegistry.com


> that VeriSign would not have planned a
> divestiture, in total compliance with the 1999 agreement.
> 
> Due to the changes in the industry since 1999, yes you are correct, Stratton
> Sclavos has stated that the registrar operations and assets will be
> divested, per the 1999 agreement and to choose the registry extension
> incentive, if the proposed agreement is not adopted by the ICANN Board, the
> Department of Commerce, and the VeriSign Board of Directors.
> 
> Please let me know if you have additional questions,
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bruce
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Erlich [mailto:erlich@domainregistry.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 12:29 PM
> To: Beckwith, Bruce
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Position Statement
> 
> Beckwith, Bruce wrote:
> 
> > Lastly, there are some facts and questions that you should consider before
> > deciding for yourselves if the proposed agreements are in fact best for
> the
> > internet community:  Did registrars choose to enter the business solely
> > based on the possibility  that NSI divest of either registrar or registry?
> > Remember, the 1999 agreement does not require divestiture!
> 
> Bruce,
> 
> With respect to this statement, the letter from Stratton
> Sclavos to Vint Cerf, opening paragraph said the
> following:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/nsi/sclavos-letter-28feb01.htm
> 
> -- Dear Vint:
> --
> -- As you know, under a 1999 agreement between ICANN and
> -- Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI has since merged with VeriSign, Inc.),
> -- in order for the term of the registries for -- .com, .net and .org
> -- to continue at least through 2007, we are obliged to divest the assets
> and
> -- operations of either the NSI Registrar or the Registry (now known as
> -- VeriSign Global Registry Services). Earlier this year,
> -- VeriSign announced its intention to divest itself of the assets
> -- and operations of the NSI Registrar and to continue to operate
> -- the Registries for .com, .net, and .org through at least 2007.
> 
> So what exactly do you mean when you say:
> 
> "Remember, the 1999 agreement does not require divestititure!"
> 
> So, why then did Verisign proceed as
> if it was going to divest, and why did Stratton Sclavos
> state so in his letter to Vint Cerf?
> Sclavos letter seems pretty clear to me.
> 
> Larry Erlich
> 
> http://www.DomainRegistry.com
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
> 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------