ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[reg-com]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[reg-com] Draft initial report on approval process

  • To: <reg-com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [reg-com] Draft initial report on approval process
  • From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:29:31 +1000
  • Cc: "Barbara Roseman" <roseman@xxxxxxxxx>, "Paul Verhoef \(E-mail\)" <paul.verhoef@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-reg-com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcRqRdjgSlepok/xQuuwuYlMXe/lmw==
  • Thread-topic: Draft initial report on approval process

Hello All,

Attached is a draft initial report.

I have collected together the public comment material and the work
Barbara Roseman did on the analysis of constituency statements.

I have also updated the diagrams with numbered steps.  The text in the
document elaborates on each step in the process diagrams.

With respect to the criteria for decision making I have consolidated as
best I could the list of points to consider that was developed at the
ICANN meeting in Rome, under the two broad areas of ICANN's
responsibility - security/stability and competition (as advised by the
ICANN General Counsel).   See
(http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/reg-com/msg00005.html)
for the list of points from the brainstorming session in Rome.

Here is the relevant text from the report:

"Is the change likely to impact operational stability, reliability,
security and global interoperability of the Internet?
========================================================================
===============

One of ICANN's core values is to preserve and enhance the operational
stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the
Internet.   In forming a view as to whether there is likely to be an
impact, ICANN should consider the following points:

Interoperability: The services provided by a gtld registry should
maximise interoperability through use of industry standards.  Generally
this can be achieved by using Internet standards and consistency with
the end-to-end Internet protocol principle, de facto industry standards,
and open standards.  The software required by users of the services
should be available from multiple vendors (for example Internet browser
software that uses the HTTP standard is available from multiple
vendors).

Stability:   In general, changes to gtld services should not impact
applications currently using those services.   The end-users of gtld
services, include registrars (which register domain names on behalf of
their customers using the registry-registrar provisioning system),
registrants (that use the domain name to reference an Internet resource
- such as an email service or website), and the wider Internet community
which make use of the DNS nameservice and WHOIS services associated with
the specific gtld.   ICANN should consider whether a change is likely to
change the behaviour of other protocols that use the service, whether
the change imposes costs on Internet end-users to update their software,
and whether the impact on applications will be predictable.  Where there
is any impact on end-users, the benefits of the change to those
end-users (as indicated by strong community support) should outweigh the
cost of software changes.   Where the impact may be unpredictable the
change should be reversible, if end-user issues arise after deployment.


ICANN staff should take advantage of outside expertise in the areas of
operational stability, reliability, security and global interoperability
of the Internet on a confidential basis during the initial review of a
registry request.  


Step 2: Is the change likely to reduce the competition in the
registration of domain names
========================================================================
===================

One of ICANN's core values is promoting competition in the registration
of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest.
In forming a view as to whether a change to a gtld service, or a new
service is likely to impact on competition, ICANN should consider
whether the change would lesson competition amongst registrars providing
services to registrants, or lesson the fair competition amongst
registrants for specific domain names. 

Where a new service is introduced, end-users should be able to choose
whether to use that new service rather than have it imposed on them.
This allows the market to operate to determine which services are useful
and which are not.  This is consistent with the ICANN core value that
where feasible and appropriate, ICANN should depend on market mechanisms
to promote and sustain a competitive environment.

 When considering competition in the registration of domain names, ICANN
should also consider whether the change to an existing service or new
service is likely to significantly impact end-users rights under
significant multi-national treaties in areas such as privacy,
trademarks, copyright, and patents. 

ICANN staff should take advantage of outside expertise in the area of
international competition law on a confidential basis during the initial
review of a registry request."

Please review the draft and let me know your comments.   If you want
something changed - please suggest alternative text.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
Chair
GNSO Council Committee on
Procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and
related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or
operation of a gTLD registry 

Attachment: Initialreport-registryapproval.doc
Description: Initialreport-registryapproval.doc



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>