From the latest 'Newsworthy' item posted on ICANN's homepage:
we have sought to respond on an individual basis to these questions as time permits,
it has become clear that the community discussion would benefit from a more formal,
authoritative source for this information"
Meaning: This forum, since it
is 99.99% AGAINST the proposed Verisign agreement revisions, doesn't have enough
'Good things to say' about the agreement. So, ICANN has posted a hard to understand
(for the layman) load of information on the site for the general public to read.
- Also, has ANYONE been responded to on 'an individual basis as time permits' by
ICANN about any posts in this forum?
I do, however, have
to agree with the part of the proposal that was posted to the 'Newsworthy' area of
the ICANN site.
From the recently posted 'FAQ':
FAQ #1: I've heard and seen
references to "Plan A" and "Plan B." What do these terms refer to?
(not the one given by ICANN):
"Plan A" is the current contract that Verisign (NSI)
Entered into in November of 1999. This contract stipulates that Verisign (NSI)
will SELL it's registrar business by November 2001. By doing this Verisign
(NSI) will be allowed to maintain the registry for .com, .net and .org domain names.
B" is the attempt to 'revise' the November 1999 Contract. This revision would
not only allow Verisign to keep the .com, .net and .org domain name registries, but
would also allow them to keep their current registrar.
There would, however,
be an agreement to relinquish the .org registry in late 2002 and .net in 2005.
Originally, Verisign would have given up all three (com, net and org) in 2003.
So, technically, by giving up .org a year early - and giving up .net a year late
- it kind of balances itself out.
But what about .com?? Yes, Verisign
was also supposed to give up the .com! But where in the proposed revision is
the part about .com?
Well, in layman's terms, the new revision states that
Verisign will hold onto the .com TLD until 2003. It also says that, unless
Verisign (for some totally impossible reasons) were to be found incapable of handling
the .com TLD, Verisign would get a 4 year extension on the .com TLD - taking their
hold on the .com registry to 2007.
"What is so bad about that?" some may
Well, from a technical standpoint, nothing at all. I think that
NSI has demonstrated the ability to handle the .com TLD over the course of their
ownership of the registry.
Yes, there are many complaints about how they
handle the registrAR section of their business (overpricing, bad service, terrible
technical support, shady business practices) but I havent heard too many people bring
up complaints about the actual registrAR part of their business.
Verisign (NSI) did agree to either give up the registrar side of their business,
or the registry side.
If they get the .com for
an additional 4 years, I dont think there will be too much public outcry. Think
about it, if Verisign decided to give up the .com, .net and .org registry at the
beginning of 2003, WHO is going to take over for them?
Look at how much
'stink' was brought up regarding the latest new TLD's. Those were TLD's that
had basically no current load. We are talking about a system that has been
in place for many years now, that we all depend on.
Yes, there may be companies
out there that are willing, and maybe even 'ready' to take on the challenge of handling
the .com, .net and .org TLD registries. But I, for one, dont want my domain
names suddenly put into the hands of 1, 2 or 3 different new companies. There
are bound to be problems. The 'transfer' will probably not be as smooth as
some would expect it to be.
So, the proposed transfer of the .org (being
NSI's smallest registry) is, in my opinion, the best way to do this.
the .org to someone else.. see what problems come up.. work to get them fixed.
Then, two years later, use the knowledge that was obtained in the
trials of the
.org transfer to get the .net (the second largest registry at NSI) transferred over.
See if it goes smoother.. work out any last 'kinks' in the transfer process.
Finally, once they know 'how' to do it, transfer the .com to a new registry handler.
There will be much less 'trial and error' and, hopefully, the transfer will be smooth
and with very little problems.
ANOTHER DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'PLAN A' AND 'PLAN
In the 'original' (Nov. 99) agreement between ICANN and Verisign/NSI,
there is a clause which states something like "If ICANN gives any TLD to anyone except
for Verisign/NSI, Verisign/NSI has the authority to sue ICANN".
In the proposed 'revision', the agreement is changed so that Verisign/NSI will not
be able to sue ICANN when the TLD's are given to someone else. This will save
us all a lot of typing.
So, notwithstanding any arguments against
the proposal on the merits of the registrY side of Verisign/NSI, the registrAR agreement
looks extremely fair and well thought out.
The arguments placed in
this forum against the .org proposal are mainly discussing the aspect of 'returning
the .org to a non-profit only status', whether there really ever was one, and how
much damage it will do to current .org owners if something like that were to actually
Interestingly enough, in this 'newsworthy' section on the
ICANN homepage, I see absolutely no reference at all to any proposals of making the
.org strictly 'non-profit'.
Either ICANN has left this part out,
or it is just a rumor.
I am inclined to think that it was purposely
left out because, if it were not true (just a rumor), I think that someone from ICANN
would have been responding to this lengthy forum to set us all straight.
This post is not to advocate or defend ICANN or Verisign/NSI for any potential
changes in the .org non-profit status. It was written to demonstrate that,
so far as the actual registry goes, the proposal looks like the best idea to come
out of ICANN/Verisign to date.
THis is, however, only my opinion.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled complaints.