[council] Comments on the Teleconference

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

Dear NC representatives:

I am disappointed by the failure of the Names Council to act on the issue of 
transfers.  In today's teleconference, the argument was advanced that the 
Council needed time to review the Registrar Constituency Statement on 
Transfers which had been posted prior to the Teleconference.

Those of us that have been following the discussions on the registrar list 
are fully aware of the fact that this short 5-page document was no more than 
the re-iteration of the letter first posted on July 31 by Michael D. Palage:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00041.doc

We are also aware that it is routine for letters to be posted immediately 
before an NC teleconference.  This should have come as no surprise.

Further, there have already been a number of letters posted to the ICANN 
Correspondence page regarding this issue:
Letter from Ross Wm. Rader to Stuart Lynn 
Letter from Roger Cochetti to Stuart Lynn 
Letter from Louis Touton to Roger Cochetti 
Letter from Roger Cochetti to Louis Touton 
Letter from William Walsh (and Others) to Stuart Lynn 

...and there has been a full discussion of this topic on both the registrars' 
list and the GA list (both publicly archived) for quite some time.

This topic has been on the NC agenda since July 19 (when it was approved by 
the Intake Committee).  You have all surely had enough time to consider this 
issue as you were all aware of it since Stockholm, and it has already been 
posted as a Public Forum topic for Montevideo.

As such I find myself astonished by your decision to take no action at this 
time, and even more astonished to read Grant Forsyth's comment that "The BC 
has not had time to fully consult on the matter of discriminatory and 
possibly anticompetitive practices of some registrars that are being brought 
to the attention of the Names Council..."   As this topic has been under 
discussion for three months already, I have to wonder how much time a 
constituency needs in order to conduct its consultations.   As a member of 
the Business Constituency, (who is still awaiting his invoice) I would be 
interested in knowing why I have not been contacted if in fact there have 
been constituency consultations.

More to the point, while millions of domain name holders are being held 
hostage by the abusive business practices of a few dominant registrars, I 
fail to see how you can justify your decision to postpone this critical 
issue.   I would think that you would feel a sense of responsibility to the 
public that you serve. 

We are all aware that resolving this issue will require the consensus process 
so that registrars may be bound contractually by a consensus decision.   At 
the very least you should have established a working group to tackle this 
matter.  It is your obligation under the ByLaws to manage the consensus 
process.  Constantly postponing decisions is not in the best interest of the 
DNSO or the stakeholders that you represent.  Domain name holders are being 
affected in great numbers by the consequences of your lassitude.   

While you collectively take no action, documents are routinely being sent by 
a number of parties directly to Stuart Lynn effectively by-passing the 
Council of the DNSO.   It appears that many have come to the conclusion that 
they can no longer count on the Council to handle domain name policy issues, 
and that they must rely on ICANN staff to settle the issues.  Even the 
Business Constituency has proposed that ICANN staff determine whether any 
policy guidelines are required.   Your failure to act in a timely fashion is 
sadly reinforcing the impression that yours is a largely irrelevant 
organization.

This need not be the case.  I ask you to bear in mind that it is not that 
often that the GA requests that an item be placed on the agenda.  We were 
expecting a full report on reported problems in TLD transfers, and a full 
report on reported problems in lapsed TLDs: renewals.   We did not hear such 
a report.  The GA also expected action to be taken on our request to 
investigate the possibility of automated systems to deal with the problem of 
excessive postings on the GA lists.  Again, we were disappointed by the 
Chair's decision to not to discuss this problem.   Still again we are 
disappointed by your Chair's decision not to place the topic of an 
Individuals' Constituency on the agenda for Montevideo.    

There was the expectation that since the Council in Montevideo is expected to 
report on Equitable allocation of SRS resources, that you would at the very 
least inaugurate some discussion on this topic (which again has been the 
subject of debate on both the registrars and the GA list).  This too did not 
happen.  

On a related matter, we have all been keenly cognizant of the problems in the 
roll-out of the TLDs, and the fraud perpetrated both by registrants and by 
registrars (who also fraudulently filed their own claims for non-existent 
trademarks -- please note the comment posted at:  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01010.html ).  We have 
been expecting the Council to take action in accordance with its Business 
Plan:

"2. TLDs. a) Review and evaluate the new TLD registries with respect to their 
impact on net users and the creation of a stable domain name system with high 
user confidence. Propose changes for consideration by the ICANN Board. 
Timeframe: 2001."  

As your Business Plan objectives go above and beyond our Presidents' TLD Task 
Force initiative, we were expecting the Council to report on efforts to 
review and evaluate the new TLD registries.  Obviously you have chosen not to 
do so... although why a "plan to make a plan" (the ICANN TLD TF approach) is 
preferable to an actual review at a time when fraud is clearly rampant 
escapes me.   

Back in February (when you first drafted this Plan), your "strategy" with 
regards to TLDs was to  "Establish an interim committee to propose terms of 
reference for an NC task force or other group."  As yet we still have no NC 
interim committee or Task Force assigned to evaluate the impact on net users. 
 

The new TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force, is chartered to create:

(a) a plan for monitoring the introduction of new TLDs and for evaluating 
their performance and their impact on the performance of the DNS. This 
assessment should focus in technical, business, and legal perspectives and 
rely on data gathered as part of the contractual arrangements with the new 
TLDs as well as other data inputs that can be readily secured;

(b) a schedule on which a plan should be executed; and

(c) potential criteria to be used as guidelines for evaluating when and how 
additional TLDs should be considered by the Board.

This President's Task Force is not charged with the responsibility of 
assessing the impact on net users.  That job was yours.  We do not see any 
evidence that this task is being managed.  

With the VeriSign Forum having been held yesterday (regarding  the 
centralized WHOIS that may attempt to incorporate "standards" that ccTLDs 
will potentially be pressured into accepting), I am surprised that the topic 
of this WHOIS development project didn't make it into your "any new business" 
discussions, especially since this is again a part of your Business Plan:

4 ccTLDs. Monitor and advise the Board on the dispute resolution and WhoIs 
policies within ccTLDs. Timeframe: 2001
Strategies
4.1 Request the ccTLD constituency to report on local dispute resolution 
mechanisms and efforts towards harmonisation.
4.2 Request the ccTLD constituency to report on WhoIs policies and efforts 
towards harmonisation.

Just because the ccTLDs have decided to form their own SO does not mean that 
domain name policy issues that pertain to the ccTLDs (which have been 
ratified by the Council at Melbourne) should not be discussed by the DNSO.   
Clearly the Intellectual Property constituency would like to have search 
functionality in the WHOIS across a broad range of data fields and across the 
entire range of ccTLDS.  There are issues here that affect your other member 
constituencies, not only the ccTLDs, as well as privacy issues which have 
long been under discussion in the GA.  

Other new business which should have been attended to included the 
appointment of a Chair for your IDN Task Force.  At this moment we have no 
reports of any progress, no discussion on the IDN mailing list, and no Chair. 
 This is not how you go about resolving issues.  I am sure that by now you 
have read the recent announcement "XTNS Launches New Domain Naming System"... 
this Naming System (among other things) attends to the substantial worldwide 
demand for language-specific domain names.  This announcement follows on the 
heels of New.net announcing TLDs in Spanish, French, and Portugese.  

If you don't "develop consensus policies for implementation of multilingual 
domain names", the alternate root community will forge ahead on this issue 
and leave us in the dust.   The IDN issues are a very real part of the 
selection criteria for new TLDs.  Please do not continue to do nothing 
regarding IDN.

Finally, there is the issue of funding the ICANN Board candiates travel to 
Montevideo.  Peter deBlanc in the teleconference indicated that funds might 
available for this purpose.  You have a Budget that includes a category for 
transporation; there is also a contingency fund, as well as a DNSO Voluntary 
Fund.  Whereas the Council in its wisdom has voted upon a schedule that will 
allow all of you to meet the candidates, it is only fitting that such funding 
now be provided for those in need.

The GA will do its part, and will arrange for a candidates 
debate/question-answer period during the GA session in Montevideo.  We would 
not wish to see any candidate excluded because of financial considerations.  
Please act on this matter with all due urgency.

Best regards,
Danny Younger