[registrars] FW: Registrar Position Statement w/r/t ICANN/DOC/VeriSign
Attached is the document that I forwarded to the Chair of the Names Counsel.
I have attempted to incorporate everyone's concern in this position
statement. I would like to thank everyone for their comments and proposed
redrafts/edits. Some last minutes votes and a change of vote did not make
this easy. If there are any problems or clarifications that need to be made
please tell me ASAP so I can forward any clarifications to our Names Counsel
representatives prior to tomorrow's meeting.
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 3:35 PM
To: Philip Sheppard
Subject: Registrar Position Statement w/r/t ICANN/DOC/VeriSign
Dear Philip Sheppard:
The Registrar Constituency is responding to the request by the ICANN Board
for input regarding the proposed 2001 agreements between ICANN and VeriSign.
The Registrar Constituency has spent significant time in the short time
frame provided deliberating on this issue and polling its members:
On March 9, Paul Kane hosted a teleconference among registrars who did not
go to Melbourne and some registrar representatives who were already at
Melbourne. Approximately 17 registrars participated and reached the general
conclusion of the attached statement, that they preferred option A to option
B, unless significant improvements were to be made. VeriSign's Roger
Cochetti and Bruce Beckwith participated in the first hour of that
teleconference and provided VeriSign's views.
On March 10, the Registrar Constituency held its meeting. At this meeting,
ICANN staff and counsel, Louis Touton and Joe Simms, briefed the
constituency and answered questions. Bruce Beckwith of VeriSign
participated in the entire meeting and also provided input. After the
official meeting, most of the registrars who were present in Melbourne, with
the exception of VeriSign, met informally to discuss in private session the
2001 proposed agreements. Again, the general sentiment coming out of this
meeting was that they preferred option A to option B, unless significant
improvements were to be made.
On March 21, a group of registrars participated in a teleconference, with
the exception of VeriSign, in order to report on the Melbourne meeting and
put forth a position statement. This teleconference was not official
because one of its members, VeriSign, was excluded due to a conflict of
interest. It was, however, open to all, and approximately 15 registrars
participated as well as the ICANN Registrar Liaison.
The result of all of these deliberations is the attached statement, which we
send to the Names Council and the ICANN Board for its consideration. We
send this statement in the spirit of fulfilling our responsibility as an
ICANN Constituency and providing the "bottoms-up" input on which ICANN is
built. If we can be of any assistance on this or other relevant issues,
please do not hesitate to call upon the Constituency."
The following companies have endorsed the principles set forth in the
ABACUS America Inc. d.b.a. A+Net
TUCOWS has submitted its own position statement modeled after the attached
position with some distinctions.
Domain Registry originally endorsed the attached position paper, but has
instead opted to argue in favor of the status quo (1999)
InterAccess/Allegiance Telecom has concerns about the contracts and will be
submitting its comments shortly
NSI/VeriSign opted to support neither of the two position statements
discussed within the Constituency.
Several other registrars have indicated that they were awaiting
authorization to endorse the attached position paper or were contemplating
drafting their own. However, due to time restraints I must submit this
document and will encourage these registrars to submit their comments to the
registrars names counsel representatives prior to tomorrow's meeting and
through the ICANN public forum.
Michael D. Palage