Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Lost Password
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)

    Registrars Verisign/NSI
    Did VeriSign Try to Pull a Very Fast One?
    posted by michael on Tuesday December 12 2006, @04:43PM

    The GA list is a fount of interesting stuff today. Consider this post from Danny Younger, forwarding from the Registrars list. If I read this right, it pretty much accuses VeriSign of deeply underhanded dealings:
    From the registrars list:

    All: I just sent this note to VeriSign. I hope that VeriSign will handle this issue shortly, but we are waiting until it is resolved before taking any action with the draft agreement. Thanks. Jon


    From: Nevett, Jonathon
    Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:35 AM
    To: Dahlquist, Raynor
    Cc: 'mshull@xxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'Gomes, Chuck';
    Subject: RRA Changes
    Importance: High

    Dear Raynor:

    We received a letter yesterday from VeriSign dated December 6th requesting that we execute an attached copy of the new Registry-Registrar Agreement for the .com regsitry. The letter states that the agreement provided is "the new ICANN approved .COM Registry-Registrar Agreement that will take effect and supersede your existing .COM Registry-Registrar Agreement with VeriSign, Inc on 30 December 2006."

    In the abundance of caution, we compared the copy of the agreement attached to the letter with the agreement actually approved by the ICANN Board and the U.S. Department of Commerce as Exhibit 8 to the .com Registry Agreement ([LINK]), and there are both substantive and non-substantive differences between the version VeriSign sent to us for execution and the version approved by ICANN and the DOC. These changes include adding various VeriSign-affiliated parties to the agreement.


    [Continued from above]

    I brought this situation to ICANN's attention. According to Kurt Pritz, ICANN was aware of VeriSign's request to ICANN to make the substantive and non-substantive changes, but stated in no uncertain terms that ICANN has not "approved or adopted" any changes to the RRA as required in Section 6.1. Therefore, VeriSign's statement that ICANN approved the version of the agreement sent to us is false. Moreover, not only did VeriSign misrepresent that it received ICANN approval to change the agreement, it also failed to inform registrars of the changes from the version posted on the ICANN website.

    I find it remarkable that VeriSign would try to change the terms of the RRA in this manner, regardless of the substance of the changes. This kind of behavior is unacceptable and violates the terms and spirit of our relationship. Indeed, we should be trying to engage in a period of healing after the long and sometimes bitter dispute over the advisability of the new .com registry agreement. Instead, VeriSign apparently is engaging in deceptive and obfuscating behavior.

    First, please let me know how you plan on rectifying this situation. Second, we should discuss a procedure for making future changes to the .com and .net RRAs so we don't continue to repeat this same scenario every few years. As per the terms of the contract, ICANN must approve any changes to the agreement. As a transparent organization, ICANN should give the other party to the agreement - the registrars - an opportunity to review and comment on proposed changes before they are approved. It is irrelevant whether VeriSign or ICANN believes that such changes are substantive. Any changes to a contract to which registrars are a party should be shared with us before they are approved. Something that may appear to be benign to ICANN or VeriSign might have some unintended consequence to other parties to the agreement.

    Third, if VeriSign does seek to change certain provisions of the agreement from the version ICANN and the DOC recently approved, I suggest that it seek to delete Section 6.15(a)(6), which still refers to a Surety Instrument that VeriSign removed from all other parts of the contract.

    I look forward to hearing back from you.


    So here's my question: IF this is all true, is it the sort of misconduct that could lead to ICANN suspending its deal on .com with VeriSign?

    And here's my second question: IF this is all true, and it isn't the sort of misconduct that could lead to ICANN suspending its deal with VeriSign...what is?

      ICANNWatch Login  


    [ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

      Related Links  
    · Danny Younger, former GA Chair
    · VeriSign/NSI
    · ICANN
    · this post from Danny Younger
    · [LINK]
    · More Registrars stories
    · Also by michael
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Did VeriSign Try to Pull a Very Fast One? | Log in/Create an Account | Top | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

    Search ICANNWatch.org:

    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com