Return to Proposed Revisions to NSI Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: woobie
Date/Time: Tue, March 20, 2001 at 9:34 PM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.01 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: Registry proposal not so bad, once you understand it


      From the latest 'Newsworthy' item posted on ICANN's homepage:

"Although 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?

Correct Answer (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.

"Plan 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 ask.
  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.

  However, 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.
  Transfer 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.

    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 happen.

    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.



Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy