RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] DoC Approved .com Agreement

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Correct.  So here is my issue (bear with me, it is a little long)

1)  The approved .com and .net agreements (85% of the gTLD market at
growing) have the following provision:  

"In addition to the other limitations on Consensus Policies, they shall
not:
(A)prescribe or limit the price of Registry Services;(B)modify the
standards for the consideration of proposed Registry Services, including
the definitions of Security and Stability (set forth below) and the
standards applied by ICANN; (C)for two years following the Effective
Date, modify the procedure for the consideration of proposed Registry
Services; (D)modify the terms or conditions for the renewal or
termination of this
Agreement; (E)modify ICANN's obligations to Registry Operator under
Section 3.2 (a), (b), and (c); (F)modify the limitations on Consensus
Policies or Temporary Specifications or Policies; (G)modify the
definition of Registry Services; (H)modify the terms of Sections 7.2 and
7.3, below; and (I)alter services that have been implemented pursuant to
Section 3.1(d) of this
Agreement (unless justified by compelling and just cause based on
Security and Stability)."

2)  The work of this Task Force is aimed at modifying existing
contractual conditions with respect to a number of different items.  Two
of which include pricing and renewal terms.

3)  Given that the .com and .net agreements specifically prohibit
Consensus Policies from (a) prescribing and/or limiting the price of
registry services (clause A) and (b) modifying the terms or conditions
for the renewal or termination of the .com and .net Agreements, isn't
the work of task force on these issues out of scope with respect to .com
and .net?

4)  And given that the other registry agreements contain a clause (and
the ICANN Bylaws affirm) stating " [ICANN shall] not single out Registry
Operator for disparate treatment unless justified by substantial and
reasonable cause", it would also appear out of scope for the other
existing registries.

If the above is correct, then what is the status of the Task Force and
the work it is producing?  Should we just limit the work of the task
force to those items that may be in scope (i.e., traffic data, security,
etc.)?

I truly believe these questions need to be addressed before we spend
more time on any of these issues.  



Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  & Business Development 

NeuStar, Inc. 



-----Original Message-----
From: Nevett, Jonathon [mailto:jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 2:02 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Bret Fausett; pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] DoC Approved .com Agreement

The DOC approved the proposed Registry Agreement between ICANN and
VeriSign as is.  The DOC also announced that it and VeriSign agreed to
amend the Cooperative Agreement between them, of which ICANN is not a
party.  Jon