[council] Background memo to council re: Verisign Registry Site Finder

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@xxxxxxx>]

Background
On Monday and Tuesday 15 and 16 September , I became aware of rapidly growing 
expressions of concern regarding the impact of a new registry service on spam 
filtering, DNS servers, ISP services and IP implications.  Newsgroups and lists 
related to communications among ISPs and network operators were flooded with 
questions and expressions of concern. I reviewed these concerns and questions 
to determine the impact on the global Internet, and therefore of concern to 
ICANN. 

ICANN's primary and most fundamental responsibility is the stability, 
reliability and interoperability of the Internet.  It has other 
responsibilities as well, but this is an overriding, and critical 
responsibility 

First and foremost, the DNS is simple, reliable, and predictable. Many 
applications rely upon its predictability and the integrity and reliability of 
the Internet is build upon its simplicity. Internet standards of operation have 
been developed, since the early days of the Internet, by engineers working 
together in a collaborative and collegial approach. They have understood that 
the good of the Internet has overriding precedent to the interests of an 
individual provider. 

RFCs are the standards by which the Internet functions. When RFCs aren't clear 
enough, the IETF can undertake to refine or modify an RFC.  In the Internet, 
good will, and cooperation are the "rule". The private sector leadership of the 
Internet depends, and is dependent upon these concepts of collegiality, mutual 
respect, adherence to the letter AND the spirit of the RFCs, and an 
understanding of the interdependency we all bring to the successful operation 
of the Internet.

Today, over 100,000 networks interoperate, interconnect, and ensure that any 
email reaches any other email address. Billions of dollars of e-commerce rely 
upon the successful operation of the Internet. It is a critical infrastructure. 
We must protect its integrity. That is "our" responsibility. Not governments. 
Not someone else's. We, as elected gNSO councilors, bear a significant role in 
ensuring the success of this global critical infrastructure. We share that with 
other entities of ICANN, including the Board and President of ICANN.

The registry new service, introduced without notice or consultation with 
affected parties, is alleged to be interfering with existing applications and 
with valid, practical assumptions which underpin the reliability and integrity, 
and therefore the stability of the Internet. 

Some may question whether the gNSO Council is out of "scope" in raising this 
issue in an advisory resolution to the ICANN board. Business users believe that 
the Council, like all ICANN entities, has a first and primary accountability to 
examine and ensure the stability of the Internet. Failure to advise the Board 
would be a dereliction of responsibility by the elected Councilors. However, it 
is clear that the gNSO alone cannot address the questions being raised.  It is 
undoubtedly and obviously, a cross ICANN entity concern, involving the ASO, the 
ccNSO, the GAC, the IAB, and Security and Stability Advisory Committee.   

The primary issue is whether it is acceptable to permit a new service to harm 
the Internet. The answer has to be "no". However, the question of whether the 
Internet is harmed is the first question to examine. That question deserves a 
fair hearing, and a process which enables examination by knowledgeable  
experts, and by those who are affected. Other questions, such as competition 
are valid, but I suggest these can be addressed on a different time frame than 
the  "harm to the Internet" which is  imperative. 

Conclusion
>From my assessment, it is my view that there are sufficient questions 
>demanding explanation, and with urgency, that I recommend that Council provide 
>an advisory resolution to the ICANN Board and request specific action by the 
>Board in relation to the new registry level service. My resolution will be 
>posted separately to Council.  I ask that the Chair place the resolution on 
>the agenda of the next Council meeting of 26 September 2003. I urge fellow 
>councilors to support this resolution. Because all are mentioned in the 
>resolution, I will copy the ASO leadership, the ccNSO launching Committee, and 
>the Stability and Stability Advisory Committee on the forthcoming resolution. 

Marilyn Cade, 
gNSO Representative of the Commercial and Business Users Constituency (CBUC)