Issues
Related to REGISTRAR/ REGISTRY
AGREEMENTS
Los
Angeles, California
November
3, 1999
- At
the ICANN Public Forum on November 3, 1999, Jim
Bramsom of AOL presented seven points of concern
expressed by a number of accredited registrars about
the DOC/ICANN/NSI agreement. We thank his staff for
providing the text, which was submitted to the ICANN
board.
-
- The accredited
registrars have reviewed the agreements that the ICANN
Board is being asked to approve. Among the registrars
concerns with these agreements are the following
widely-shared issues relating to the
agreements:
1. Credit policies for
registrars should be uniform.
Issue:
The proposed agreements would exempt NSI in its
capacity as a registrar from the requirement that all
registrars are assured of payment of registration fees
before activating a domain name. This exemption would
give NSI a competitive advantage over other
registrars.
Proposal:
NSI has stated that as a technological matter, they
cannot meet the prepayment requirement at this time.
To create a level playing field, NSI should not be
allowed to change its domain name registration pricing
until it is able to comply with the prepayment
requirements.
2. NSI registrar
should not be able to enter into exclusive agreements in
the short term.
Issue:
Amendment 11 prohibits the NSI registrar from entering
into exclusive agreements with its customers
(effectively partners) for a period of eighteen months
form the onset of the test bed in order to facilitate
the entry of competitive registrars into the market.
An apparent drafting inconsistency was created in
Amendment 19 which could be interpreted to eliminate
the exclusivity prohibition.
Proposal:
Amendment 19 should be clarified to indicate that it
does not remove the exclusivity prohibition contained
in Amendment 11. Furthermore, because the test bed was
extended for four months, thereby delaying the entry
of new registrars into the market, the exclusivity
prohibition should be extended for a corresponding
four months in order not to disadvantage the new
registrars.
3. Registry service
level agreements should be incorporated into
agreements.
Issue:
The current agreements do not contain any standards
for measuring the technical and service performance of
the registry.
Proposal:
The contracts must be modified to establish effective
measuring standards and corresponding remedies to
ensure that the registry operates in a reliable and
stable manner. such standards are typical in these
kinds of managed service environments, and should be
considered without any increase in the $6 per year per
domain name registration fees paid by the registrars
to the registry.
Attached
is a proposed amendment to the contract addressing
this issue that was discussed with the NSI
registry.
4. NSI should not have
sole approval over changes in ICANN accreditation
fees.
Issue:
Changes in the annual accreditation fees paid by the
registrars to ICANN must be approved by registrars
accounting for payment of two-thirds of all registrar
level fees. NSI will account for two-thirds o these
fees in the foreseeable future and thus control this
vote.
Proposal:
Changes in accreditation fees should more properly be
approved by a consensus of all accredited registrars.
5. rs.internic.net
should not point to the NSI registrar's WHOIS
database.
Issue:
The current agreements propose a six-month transition
for NSI to discontinue pointing rs.internic.net to the
NSI registrar's WHOIS database. This lengthy
transition will continue to confuse consumers and
businesses that view rs.internic.net as the definitive
source of WHOIS data.
Proposal:
rs.internic.net should resolved to the NSI registry
database.
6. The SRS protocol
should be accessible to future DNS
participants.
Issue:
under the proposed contracts, NSI owns the SRS
protocol necessary to access the current gTLD
registry. the agreements do not provide for new gTLD
registries to have access to the SRS protocol. This
may lead to the development of multiple protocols to
be used by registrars when communicating with multiple
registries and inhibit the use of new gTLDs.
Proposal:
The agreements should make the SRS protocol publicly
available to accredited registrars and registries to
ensure a uniform standard.
7. Customers need to
be aware that there are now registration
alternatives.
Issue:
Domain name holders may not be aware that there are
multiple registrars who can assist them in registering
gTLDs.
Proposal:
There should be an ICANN sponsored mechanism to
educate the public about the registrar service options
available.
PROPOSED
AMENDMENT ON REGISTRY SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT
- ICANN
Accredited Registrars ("Registrars") and Network Solution
Registry ("Registry") shall, within 45 days after the
effective date of the Registry Agreement ("Effective
Date"), establish a Registry Service Level Agreement
("SLA") for the Shared Registration System ("System")
that shall include, at least:
- identified
service level parameters and measurements regarding
performance of the System, including, for example, System
availability;
- responsibilities
of the Registrars and Registry (e.g., the obligation of
the Registrars to notify the Registry of any experienced
System outages and the obligation of the Registry to
respond in a timely manner to System
outages);
- an appropriate
Service Level dispute resolution process; and
- remedies for
failure to meet the SLA.
The Registry and
Registrars shall also discuss other SLA issues, including an
SLA for customer service from the Registry to the Registrars
(e.g., customer service performance).
The Registry and
Registrars agree that unless the SLA requires fundamental
architecture changes to the System or extraordinary
increases in costs to the Registry beyond what is generally
required to implement an SLA (which is not the intent of the
Registry or the Registrars), the SLAs will be created and
implemented without any increase in the $ price for Registry
services.
The 45 day
drafting period ("Drafting Period") shall be structured as
follows: (a) representatives of the Registrars and
representatives of the Registry (the "SLA" Working Group")
shall promptly meet and complete a draft of the SLA within
20 days after the Effective Date; (b) the Registrars shall
have 10 days after distributions of the draft SLA to submit
comments to the Working Group; and (c) the Working Group
shall meet again to finalize and approve the SLA, taking
into account the comments of the Registrars. The Drafting
Period and structure shall be subject to modification by
mutual agreement of the parties to the Working Group. The
SLA shall be implemented as soon as reasonably feasible
after its completion, including by implementing the SLA in
stages if appropriate.
In the event the
Working Group is unable to agree upon an SLA within the
Drafting Period, ICANN, shall promptly appoint an
independent third party, with experience in the development
of SLAs, to mediate a resolution between the parties.
Upon its approval
by the Working Group, the SLA shall be incorporated as a
Schedule to the Registrar License and Agreement.
|
|
|
ICANN
|
|
  BYLAWS
BOARD
ANNOUNCEMENTS
MEETINGS
COMMITTEES
SUPPORTING
ORGANIZATIONS
REGISTRARS
NEWS
REPORTS
ESSAYS
AND EDITORIALS
ICANNT
|
