[council] PROPOSAL FROM GTLD CONSTITUENCY
Phillip-
Thank
you for circulating a draft resolution on the proposed VeriSign/ICANN
agreement. We are disappointed with it for several
reasons:
First,
it seems that it would have the Council assert (in the language of the
ICANN Bylaws) "that the DNSO process has produced a community consensus", which
is nowhere documented or substantiated. This strikes at the heart of the
credibility of the Names Council, whose primary mission is a process that
produces a community consensus. We see no consensus among the
Constituencies in this area, and there may not be a consensus within many
Constituencies as well ;
Second, it would have the Council assert that it
"... remains concerned about
the lack of earlier consultation and that being presented with one choice makes
for poor decision making within ICANN.", when in fact the Council
has several choices, most notably to express support for Plan A, or for
Plan B or to not engage in what ICANN management asserts is not a
policy matter.
Third, it would have the Council assert
that it is concerned about "...the lack of certainty in the stability of
the changed competitive climate...", whereas it is clear that the
global market for all domain name registrations, including both gTLDs and
ccTLDs, has gotten very competitive and is getting more competitive every
day.
Fourth, it would have the Council
assert that it is concerned about "...the uncertainty reflecting the
divestment of .net...", whereas the proposed agreement speaks pretty
clearly to exactly what would happen and ICANN management's FAQ's amplify
on the agreement.
Fifth, it would have the Council
assert that it is concerned that "...the revised agreement seems less specific
on the provision of Whois services...", whereas the proposed agreement and
clarification made about it present a clearer picture of how Whois services
would be addressed under Plan B than is available under Plan A. (For ICANN
management's views, see their FAQ # 21).
Most importantly, we are disappointed that
the proposed resolution ignores the fact that VeriSign management has made
clear that it is prepared to pursue Plan A or Plan B, but that there is
no Plan C, by proposing that the ICANN Board re-negotiate the proposed
agreement with altogether new terms.
We believe that the Council deserves
better, and suggest that the Council act on a resolution that would permit
the Constituencies to speak for themselves and have their final
comments aggregated and sent to the ICANN Board by the Names
Council. This motion, which we are hereby introducing,
follows.
If this motion does not carry, then we
believe that the Council needs to address the substantive question before it,
which is whether it has any comments for the ICANN Board on
whether the Board should support Plan A or Plan B. Accordingly, if
the attached resolution does not carry, then we will propose two other, very
brief, resolutions: one endorsing Plan A (retain the 1999 agreements)
and the other endorsing Plan B (execute the proposed ICANN VeriSign
agreement).
My apologies for the late introduction of
this quite brief resolution. However I believe that it does not
involve any ideas that are not fairly straightforward or that have not been
previously discussed.
Roger Cochetti
gTLD
Constituency
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GTLD Constituency Proposed Resolution Names Council Statement on the Proposed ICANN/VeriSign Agreement Whereas the ICANN Board has
resolved: [01.22] that the Board requests all members of the Internet
community, including the Names Council and any of the constituencies and other participants in the Domain
Name Supporting Organization, to provide comments on the substantive merits of
the proposal no later than 31 March 2001; and Whereas the Names Council has requested the DNSO Constituencies and the DNSO General Assembly to communicate their positions on the
proposed agreement, the NC resolves to communicate to the
ICANN Board the individual and final
positions of the DNSO Constituencies and the General Assembly
(attached). - END - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|