RE: [ga] Draft Resolution

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: On Behalf Of Kent Crispin
|> Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2001 4:44 AM
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Draft Resolution
|>
|>
|> On Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 06:20:07PM +1300, DPF wrote:
|> > DRAFT RESOLUTION
|> [...]
|> >
|> > Specific concerns the general assembly has regarding the proposed
|> > contract are:
|> >
|> >
|> > - The granting of a presumptive right to be the *.com registry to
|> > Verisign.  By lowering the necessary performance standard to retain
|> > *.com *which makes up 65% of all domain names in the world), this
|> > removes a huge pressure on the registry to keep prices as low as
|> > possible and to have the best possible relationship with Registrars
|>
|> "huge"? I doubt that very seriously.  While people complain about the
|> lack of effectiveness of TLD vs TLD competition, the effectiveness of
|> serial competition is equally questionable, at least as things are
|> currently constructed.  [+] (see note on "serial competition", below)

I do not want to see TLD vs TLD competition.  I see the Registries as being a
fundamental resource for the Internet community and would like to see them
operated by non-commercial interests under strict guidelines developed by ICANN
and the Internet community.  Competition should only need to be introduced at
the Registrar level where the consumers are.  There needs to be better control
of the infrastructure.  This is an ideal we should be attempting to work towards
now so when the opportunity arises to make the change it will be possible.

<snip>

|> > - The possibility of a change to the status of *.org registration
|>
|> 1) There is a possibility of that, regardless.  In any case, the registry
|> operator is bound to abide by "consensus policies".
|>
|> 2) Given the complexity of the process we have seen in getting new gTLD
|> operators in place, it is inconceivable that a new operator/policy for
|> .org would be put in place without a long-drawn out public process.

As it should be.  Changing the accepted policy of a TLD will require ICANN to
listen to the DNSO and other SO's.

|> > - Granting the ability to Verisign to increase registry prices with
|> > only 30 days notice
|>
|> But there are price caps, as I recall.  Price caps are the only thing
|> that matters, in fact, because if some other company wins the rebid,
|> they win a monopoly for 4 years (or whatever the term might be) in any
|> case, and can immediately reset the prices. (* "serial competition", below)

My understanding was that the price caps would be removed under the new
agreement.

|> > - The ambiguity over what the $200 million to be invested in registry
|> > development would actually be, and the lack of any clear process to
|> > audit this.
|>
|> Reasonable point.

The two amounts quoted within the new agreement do not mean squat to me.  They
appear to be sweeteners designed to divert attention from the important issues.
The $200 million for R&D especially.  Without having a clear budget assigned to
the funding it is conceivable the money would be spent without any benefit to
the Internet community.  The $5 million assigned to assist with the Registry
handling .org is of interest but I can not see any reason why extra
consideration be given to this aspect.  I'm sure any organisation that was
developed to handle the .org Registry would be able to find funding for
activities.

|> > - The non-transparent process used to negotiate these agreements which
|> > are then presented as not negotiable to the ICANN Board and DNSO
|>
|> If a negotiating partner insists on secrecy, one is put in an awkward
|> position.  In any case, what does this have to do with the merits of the
|> proposals?

Actually, it can have a great deal to do with how such proposals are viewed.
Secrecy should not be acceptable to ICANN when policy is concerned.  There is
also the matter of trust.  As with most things, the community needs to see
procedure in practice, not just discussed.  In this instance we have seen the
correct procedures not being followed.  This has the tendency to make the
community distrustful and anxious about proposals dealt with in such a manner.

<snip>

|> > - The total lack of outside analysis on whether the proposed changes
|> > will be beneficial to the Internet community
|>
|> A valid concern.  Not clear how that could have been done, though.  This
|> was an exploratory private negotiation, at the behest of NSI, and NSI
|> played the deadlines in the way it thought was most advantageous.  In
|> retrospect, that may have been a mistake on their part.
|>
|> William Walsh has pressed me to come up with what advantages I see with
|> the new proposals.  There is no mystery: The advantages have actually
|> all been stated: splitting off of .net and .org, cleaner contracts,
|> various monetary committments, and so on.  These are clear and obvious
|> advantages.

Although I can see advantages in the long term to split off the TLD's, in this
instance and in the short term I can not see any advantages to the Internet
community.  If anything, I see disadvantages in the short term due to adding
complexity and the disruption caused by the split.  For any advantages to be
considered there would need to be a concise and fully developed policy on the
handling of all the TLD's and Registries.  I haven't seen such a policy as yet.

Cleaner contracts is an ambivious term.  Accepted the contracts may be an
improvement, however, it is not proven they are the most advantageous for the
general community.

The monetary committements are of limited advantage to the community.

I would say these are not clear and obvious advantages.

<snip>

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html