Milton Mueller wrote:

>ICANN Posts Proposed Amendment to .NET Registry Agreement for Public Comment.
>http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-22sep05.htm 
>
= =

As some background information to this issue, I share here part of the recordings from the ICANN Luxembourg Meetings, 11-15 July 2005.


It is a something lengthy text, but in order to share the background of 
the discussion which took place in Luxembourg on this issue, I copy this 
here.

Norbert Klein

= = = =

Bhavin Turakhia: members of the board, my name is bhavin turakhia.
i'm here to make comments about the dot net modifications made by icann.

my first comment is my report as the chair of the registrars 
constituency about the extreme displeasure expressed by all registrars 
with regards to changes in the dot net contract without following due 
process.

we, as the registrars, have drafted a statement which has been 
unanimously agreed upon by all registrars within the constituency. the 
statement of the registrars constituency is as follows:

the registrars trusted the icann board and the icann staff to act on 
behalf of the icann community in negotiating a new contract with 
verisign for dot net.

registrars consider there to be a breach of trust by the icann board and 
the icann staff in approving a contract with verisign that contains 
significant changes from the original draft dot net agreement posted on 
the icann web site without any public consultation.

we consider this not only a breach of trust, but a breach of the 
transparency provision of the icann bylaws that states that icann should 
operate in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures 
designed to ensure fairness.

specifically, the bylaws state that icann will have a public comment 
period in case changes that significantly affect third parties and/or 
involve any imposition or changes to pricing.

this is not the first time that this has happened.

when the new transfers policy was implemented, the icann board approved 
a change in the verisign rra that contained changes beyond purely for 
the purposes of the transfers policy without any public consultation 
with the registrars.

the icann staff later on gave an undertaking to the registrars, a verbal 
undertaking, "this will not happen again."

it is the registrars' view that this verbal undertaking was breached by 
the icann staff.

the changes to the dot net agreement that specifically concern 
registrars are: the maximum price, $1.425 put forward by verisign in the 
dot net application only applies for the first 18 months of the new 
agreement. after that, verisign is free to set any price.

we registrars are shocked by this and want the maximum price fixed for 
the duration of the entire agreement.

the second point, which is verisign is excluded from new consensus 
policies and powers of the gnso are considerably reduced by the new 
contract.

we registrars are shocked by this and insist that verisign continue to 
be subjected to these consensus policies.

the third point is, icann negotiation powers during renewal of the 
contract are significantly curtailed in the dot net contract.

we registrars are shocked by this and require icann to retain the 
ability to negotiate terms, including lower pricing at the time of 
contract renewal.

we registrars therefore insist for the following.

number 1, a reopening and revision of the dot net contract in the view 
of the fact that due process, including the icann bylaws were not followed.

number 2, assurances that due process will be followed in similar 
circumstances in the future.

number 3, specific assurances that there's no way something similar will 
occur in the dot com contract.

100% of the registrars who are present here at the icann meeting in 
luxembourg have agreed to this statement, including ascio, anytime 
cites, aus registry, tucows, enom, bulk register, core, deutsche 
telekom, direct i, domain bank, domains only, apag, godaddy, wild west 
domains, blue razor, i holdings, melbourne i.t., name intelligence, name 
dot com, name bay, network solutions, name secure, srs plus, 
register.com, solace, domainclip, 2num.it, dot star, mark monitor, gmo, 
nominalia, stargate, and (inaudible).

my comment as the chair of the registrars' constituency is over.

i, however, do have a few more words that i want to say in my position 
as an icann-accredited registrar since the last four, five years.

the following comments are my individual comments.

i have been attending icann meetings for several years now. i have seen 
decisions that take place in these years that i agreed with and 
decisions that i did not agree with. but for the first time in the 
history of my relationship with icann, i have lost trust on the system.

i was, until now, an ardent and vocal supporter of the icann process, 
both with local governments and within the community.
there have been circumstances in the past where the process did not 
work, but i've always adopted a consultative process, consultative 
approach to work these things out with icann or others concerned.

never for once in the past have i ever given a thought to withdrawing or 
diminishing my support for icann because i have always felt that shows 
situations arose not out of any wrongful intent.

however, for the first time, i'm beginning to question the intentions 
behind icann.

for the first time, i'm feeling hurt and cheated, despite having 
supported the icann model in every possible way.

for the first time, i'm beginning to question as to whether there truly 
exists a bottoms-up consensus process, or is it all a myth.

the dot net contract modifications conducted without due process are a 
slap in my face.

thousands of people spent cumulatively millions of dollars every quarter 
to attend these meetings at polar ends of the world simply to support 
and sustain this icann bottoms-up consensus model.

it is a slap in the face of all these attendees and their organizations 
to defy that contribution and undermine their roles in this fashion.

hundreds of volunteers around the world devote thousands of hours of 
their time free of cost to help develop consensus policies and processes.

it is a slap in the face of these volunteers to undermine their work.
500 registrars are paying 70% of the icann budget.

it is a slap in the face of all of us registrars to belittle our 
contribution by taking us for granted in this fashion.

i would like to conclude by saying that i'll be returning back to india, 
and on monday, i'll open my checkbook and write a check.

and i want you, the board members, to help me decide, should i write 
that check to icann, as i've been doing every quarter for several years 
now, or should i write that check to my stockbroker with instructions to 
buy verisign stock?

thank you.
==