ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Proposed ICANN - Verisign agreement

  • To: <settlement-comments@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Proposed ICANN - Verisign agreement
  • From: Bimp Enterprises <domreg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:04:09 -0500

As the ICANN website requests, I will try to keep this concise.

Comments regarding proposed ICANN / Verisign settlement (and proposed .COM registry agreement):

1. I disagree with section 7.3 (d) (ii). I believe any and all fee increases for a registry operator, since it is a monopoly, should be reviewed by ICANN. If that is too much work for ICANN, it might also be tied to the U.S. core inflation rate.

2. I probably disagree with 7.3 (h), depending on the answer to: Why are the fees being paid by accredited registrars being increased??

3. I disagree with section 4.2 for, what seems like, obvious reasons. In lieu of corrections to section 4.2, I would prefer to see the term of section 4.1 extended to 2016.

4. The "Additional Questions and Answers (Posted 21 November 2005) at http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-21nov05.htm seems to sidestep Q4.3, implying that the amount Verisign invested was less than required. This alone should give ICANN pause, and cause, for investigating other operators for this registry.

I have many other comments, but have tried to keep this concise, as requested. If you would like elaboration on any of the above, please contact me.

Thank you,
Mark Waggoner

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy