Re: [ga] Advantages to Option B

[david@farrar.com]

> Option B Advantages to ICANN &/or the Internet Community:
> 
> 1. 10-year $200M investment in research and development and infrastructure
> to increase the efficiency and stability of the .com, .net and .org
> registries and the ability of ICANN accredited registrars to access those
> registries (Sclavos letter to Cerf)
> 2. $5M contribution for the creating of a new .org registry (Sclavos letter
> to Cerf)
> 3. Terms for VeriSign financial support to ICANN in the .com, .net and .org
> agreements are modified to be the same as that for the new gTLD registries.
> Not only does this result in a replacement of the old fee caps but it also
> allows ICANN to greatly simplify its fee collection structure so that all
> fees are collected through registries instead of through both registries and
> registrars.  This adds additional responsibility to the VeriSign Registry
> while at the same time reducing fee collection costs and increasing
> efficiency for ICANN.  (com-II.7; new-3.14; old-6)
> 4. In addition to continuing the 'fire-wall' requirements in the old
> agreement, the NSI Registrar must become a separate corporate subsidiary of
> VeriSign. (com-II.23, new-23, old-21)
> 5. The .net and .org agreements become essentially the same as the new gTLD
> agreements with the exception of the term and any clauses specifically
> related to the gTLDs themselves.  Note: In my opinion, these terms are
> definitely less favorable to VeriSign.
> 6. VeriSign will lose the .org TLD at the end of 2002, five years earlier
> than under the existing agreement, assuming the 4-year extension after the
> separation of the Registry and Registrar.  (org-5, old-23)
> 7. The .net TLD will be re-competed at the end of 2005, 22 months earlier
> than under the existing agreement, assuming the 4-year extension after the
> separation of the Registry and Registrar.  (net-5, old-23)
> 8. The termination clause in the .net and .org agreements is expanded to
> include several additional causes for termination.  (new-5.4, old-23)
> 9. The new .org registry will be allowed to use VeriSign Global Registry
> Services gTLD server constellation for free for one year and thereafter, if
> the new registry so desires, at a price to be determined.  (org-5.1.5)
> 10. In the new .net and .org agreements, the list of possible topics for
> specifications and policies is expanded.  (new-4.2; old-3.C)
> 
> Whereas some may want to debate whether or not some of the above are clearly
> advantages to the Internet community at large, in my opinion, they are all
> advantages to ICANN and are all 'take-aways' for VeriSign.  In trade for
> these 'take-aways,' which I think are very significant for VeriSign,
> VeriSign is given a clearer procedure for renewal for the .com registry
> (com-II.25) and the requirement to divest of the Registrar is removed if the
> Registrar is made a separate corporate subsidiary (com-II.23.C).

This is a pretty good summary of what is there.  Some issues are less clear cut 
like what exactly the $200 will entail and is it extra on top of what was 
planned anyway but we have had that debate.

The big question for the Internet community is whether the 10 (IMO fairly 
minor) gains outweigh the two (IMO large) concessions.  That is not something 
which one can objectively measure - it is a judgement call.

Could I suggest to the Chair that in order to provide a full report to the 
Names Council and Board we consider two resolutions - a majority and a minority 
one.

Those who opposse the proposals will be asked to indicate support for a 
statament setting out why (I will publish later today a revision on my earlier 
draft) they beleive they do not benefit the Internet Community.  At the moment 
this looks like it will be the majority report.

Those who support the proposals also indicate support for a statement setting 
out why they do, which I suggest could be based largely on Mr Gomes'post 
above.  Again at this stage this looks to be the minority report.


This will hopefully demonstrate to the NC and Board that the GA has debated and 
considered both points of view.

DPF

--
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