[council] Constituency comments on Issues report: Registry Services

["GNSO SECRETARIAT" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Please find a text version of Constituency comments on the:
Staff Manager's Issue Report on the Need for a Predictable Procedure for
Changes in the Operation of TLD Registries
http://www.icann.org/gnso/issue-reports/registry-svcs-report-19nov03.htm

Message from ALAC to ICANN
7 November 2003


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 21:15:36 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler
To: Barbara Roseman
Cc: Vittorio Bertola
Subject: New registry services / constituency statements

Individual Internet users can be affected by the introduction of new
registry services in several roles: As registrants, they are affected by
services that change the registration system, and by services that might
affect their ability to reach an intended audience online. As "DNS
consumers", they are affected by changes to DNS behavior.

Individual Internet users are also affected by indirect effects that the
introduction of new registry services (or, likewise, a failure to introduce
such services) might have: A registry service not introduced might be a
valuable offer that is not available to Internet users. A registry not able
to operate in a commercially viable manner may damage its registrants. A TLD
market that is commercially attractive for new operators will give Internet
users more choice in the long term, and will enable competition. A registry
service that moves choice from the network's edges to its center, though,
means less choice for users, and will replace competition at the network's
edges to its center, though, means less choice for users, and will replace
competition at the network's edges by a monopoly at the center. A change to
DNS behavior that specifically targets a single application-level protocol
may improve user experience in the short term, but will harm innovation in
the long term.

These examples demonstrate that there is no simple and universal way to
answer the question whether some specific new registry services should be
introduced, by whom, and how.

In very general terms, we would argue that the introduction of new registry
services should be permitted unless publicly detrimental.

As far as the implementation of this general principle is concerned, we
limit our comments at this point to some preliminary and basic observations:

Any decision about the introduction of new registry services should be based
on well-defined, objective criteria that must be applied in an even-handed
manner. This should not prevent ICANN (or whatever entity is chartered with
evaluating proposed registry services) from taking possible market dominance
of the party that proposes a registry service into account.
When a new registry service is both deliverable at the network's edges and
at its core, then preference should -- in general -- be given to delivering
this service at the network's edges, in order to foster user choice and
competition. (See issue 6.6 from the staff manager's draft report.)
The introduction of a new registry service should not create a situation in
which commercial gain at the center comes at cost that is incurred by
parties at the network's edges, without giving those who incur the cost a
choice about it.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment, and look forward to further
contributing to the development of a fair and objective process for
assessing new registry services.

 Message from J. Scott Evans to Barbara Roseman
7 November 2003


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

From: "J. Scott Evans"
To: <pdp-reports@xxxxxx>
Subject: IPC comments for Staff Manager's Issues Report on the Development
of a
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 17:41:39 -0500

Dear Ms. Roseman:

[T]he IPC Leadership thanks the Staff Manager for the opportunity to provide
its comments for the New Registry Services Issue Report. Given the
monopolistic nature of registry-level services, the members of the IPC may
be greatly affected by the introduction of such services. For this reason,
the IPC welcomes the initiation of a PDP on new registry services and looks
forward to working through the process with other stakeholders in the
Internet community.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with our comments.

Kind regards.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY

J. Scott Evans,
President

 Message from Mark McFadden to Barbara Roseman
11 November 2003


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

From: "Mark McFadden"
To: "'Barbara Roseman'"
Cc: <ispcp@xxxxxx>, <iaison6c@xxxxxx>
Subject: ISPCP Statement on Issues Report for Proposed Registry Services
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:21:21 -0600

Regarding the Proposed Issues Report on Registry Services Internet Service
Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency

The ISPCP Constituency has a direct connection with a significant body of
Internet stakeholders. Our customers - those people connected to the
Internet - are the people and organizations most affected by unexpected
changes in the Internet. This includes the introduction of new or modified
registry services. Naturally, the ISPCP constituency needs to be a
significant contributor to the Registry Services PDP process.

ISPs are in a unique position to help guide policy development on new
registry services. As those who have been largely responsible for the
stability of the Internet, we believe that it is vitally important that the
GNSO and its Council balance the need to move quickly on potential registry
services while carefully thinking through operational and legal impacts of
any recommendations. Our constituency actively supports the principle of
maintaining the stability that the Internet has always enjoyed.

Specifically, we believe that there is a requirement for technical, security
and stability reviews for any newly proposed registry service. In addition,
we believe that any significant change to registry services - that
significantly changes or alters fundamental functions of DNS related
services - should also be subject to an explicit, public, and extensive
security, stability and technical review.

No other group in the GNSO is as well positioned as the ISPCP to coordinate
the technical evaluation of the protocol and operational impacts of a
proposed change to registry services. Our constituency works daily with both
the protocol standards that make the DNS work and is fully aware of the
operational issues that are not part of the protocols, but which are
embedded in the operational behavior of Internet protocols and services.

Fundamentally, our constituency believes that:

No new registry service should be introduced without an explicit, public
evaluation of its technical, stability and security implications;

No significant changes to registry services should take place that have the
potential to significantly change the behaviour of underlying Internet
services;

The ISPCP constituency should be a central contributor to any discussion of
the technical implications of the introduction of new registry services;

All constituencies should be bound by the "principle of least astonishment"
in the development of new services that affect the foundation protocols of
the Internet; and,

All participants in GNSO constituencies should be bound by principles of
operational security and stability for the Internet's user community.

The ISP community must be a central part of the PDP process and any process
that evaluates any future registry service offerings.  If the ISPCP is not
an explicit participant in the process, they must be able to participate by
identifying appropriate expert analysts who can represent the operational
interests of ISPs.

On behalf of the ISPCP Constituency,

Mark McFadden
ISPCP Secretariat

 Message from Ross Wm. Rader to Barbara Roseman
14 November 2003


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:15:49 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader"

Barbara,

I write to you on behalf of Tucows Inc. and those registrars that chose to
provide me with the feedback I solicited in my message to the Registrar
Constituency of November 4, 2003
(<http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg00820.html>
) concerning your draft report, "Excerpt from Draft Version of Staff
Managers Issues Report for the Development of a Process for the Introduction
of New or Modified Registry Services". This communication is not an official
communication of the Registrar Constituency and should not be viewed as
such. Thank you in advance for taking the time to review these (late)
comments concerning your report excerpt.

The excerpt is quite comprehensive and will likely serve as a useful basis
for discussion and resolution of the issues you have identified. There are
however three items of specific interest to registrars that you may wish to
consider for inclusion in your document;

Specifically determining the definition of a "registry service". This is
very unclear to the registrars that I spoke to and will be the lynchpin in
any discussions moving forward. There is a strongly held belief held by
members of the constituency that there needs to be a distinction drawn
between the evaluation of services that benefit from the registry having
exclusive access to the TLD database and those that do not.
Clarifying the intended nature of the registry contracts. This is not so
much a matter for the policy development process, but rather, a statement
that the ICANN Staff or Board can make to clarify whether the existing
registry contracts are, as one member put it
"...intended to be in the form of an outsourced arrangement where a registry
operator provides a specified service (e.g domain name registration) for a
specified price (e.g $6) for the ICANN community, OR is the registry
agreement intended to be in the form of a licence right to operate a
particular TLD and generate revenue based on the services possible from such
a role (subject to some maximum price controls on core services)?"

First examining the question of whether or not new registry services should
be introduced prior to examining the question of how new registry services
should be introduced.
We would appreciate specific clarification on each of these questions.

Given that a significant portion of the policy development process is
analysis, we must ensure that we promote a complete and thorough analysis of
the salient issues. The answers to each of these question will shape the
nature of the policy development discussion on a very fundamental level and
it is imperative that the community proceeds with the policy development
process with the context that answers to these questions can provide. We
therefore strongly urge that these matters are considered in some way by
your report.

I thank you again for your time and attention to this matter. Please do not
hesitate to contact me if you require further clarification regarding the
issues that I raise with this message.

Warm regards,

Ross Wm. Rader
Tucows Inc.

 Message from Jeff Neuman to Barbara Roseman
7 November 2003


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

From: "Neuman, Jeff"
To: Barbara Roseman, Paul Twomey, John Jeffrey, Kurt Pritz,
pdp-reports@xxxxxx, Vint Cerf, Alejandro Pisanty
Cc: GNSO Secretariat, GNSO Council, Tina Dam
Subject: Unsponsored gTLD Registries Statement on Registry Services
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:54:55 -0500

UNSPONSORED REGISTRIES STATEMENT

Regarding the Proposed Issues Report on Registry Services

The gTLD Registries Constituency of the Generic Names Supporting
Organization is currently comprised of the three Sponsored and six
Unsponsored Registry Operators, including Afilias, Ltd. (.info),
DotCooperation, LLC (.coop), Global Name Registry (.name), Musedoma
(.museum), NeuLevel, Inc. (.biz), Public Interest Registry (.org),
RegistryPro (.pro), SITA (.aero) and VeriSign (.com & .net).

On behalf of the six Unsponsored gTLD Registry Operators, we submit the
following statement set forth below:

BACKGROUND

Each of the gTLD Registry Operators has entered an agreement with the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers which governs the
relationship between ICANN and the individual registry operator. It should
be noted that only the Unsponsored Registry Agreements have any provisions
regarding "Registry Services." In addition, the Unsponsored Registry
contracts only provide that ICANN consent to the price of a new "Registry
Service" so long as the operation as such service does not truly threaten
the technical stability of the domain name system. While this constituency
recognizes the need for an ICANN procedure for prompt technical and security
impact review of proposed "Registry Service", with a predictable,
streamlined and appropriate market-based approach, the contracts themselves
do not give ICANN or any third party, including any of the GNSO
Constituencies, Supporting Organizations, Task Forces or Advisory
Committees, the ability to consent to any other aspects of "Registry
Services." The applicable contracts do not provide a role for ICANN with
respect to prices or specifications for services or products provided by
registries that are not "Registry Services" as defined in such agreements.

To the extent that ICANN wishes to increase its scope and/or powers with
respect to "Registry Services", it may only do so in accordance with its
agreements or with the express written consent of those with which it has
contracts (namely, the Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars). In
addition, the meaning of such agreements will be governed according to
applicable legal principles. It cannot be said that any interpretation by
one party after having entered the agreement is binding on the other party
or evidences ambiguity. In addition, interpretations offered by third
parties have no particular relevance in determining the meaning intended by
the parties to the relevant agreements. To the extent that there are any
disputes over the meaning of any terms within ICANN's Agreements with the
registries, there is a built in dispute resolution process in the contracts.
Such dispute resolution does not involve any of the GNSO Constituencies,
Supporting Organizations, Task Forces or even Advisory Committees.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON ISSUES REPORT

The gTLD Registries Constituency is extremely concerned about the issues
raised in the "Excerpt from Draft Version of Staff Manager's Issues Report
for the Development of a Process for the Introduction of New or Modified
Registry Services." Not only are most of those issues irrelevant to the
introduction of "Registry Services" as defined in the applicable contracts
with gTLD Unsponsored Registries, but it also inappropriately suggests that
parties other than ICANN and the gTLD Registry Operators might be entitled
to prevent the introduction of otherwise lawful new "Registry Services." As
stated above, many of these issues involve contractual interpretation that
involve only the parties to those contracts, and not the ICANN community as
a whole. ICANN may not unilaterally, or through the policy development
process, promulgate rules or regulations interpreting these agreements
without the consent of the registry operators. Any attempt to do so would be
considered a violation of those agreements and subject to the dispute
resolution process set forth in such agreements.

It is the gTLD Registries Constituency's view that many of the topics
identified in the "Issues Report" should not be addressed by the GNSO,
Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees, but by the ICANN
staff/board and the gTLD Registry Operators.

IMPACT OF PDP PROCESS ON GTLD REGISTRIES

To state the obvious, if there is any one constituency of the GNSO that this
PDP process potentially affects, it is the gTLD Registries, specifically the
Unsponsored Registries. Not only does the introduction of "Registry
Services" impact the competitive environment in which we operate, the
investment which we are able to make in our businesses, but ultimately, it
affects the very survival of our businesses. Without a procedure for prompt
technical and security impact review of proposed "Registry Service" with a
predictable, streamlined and appropriate market-based approach by which
ICANN exercises its rights with respect to Registry Services, the future of
domain name registries is in jeopardy.

RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

As the ICANN has posted only a portion of the Issues Report, the gTLD
Registries reserve the right to comment on the complete Issues Reports, when
such report is released. In addition, the comments contained herein do not
address the substance of the issues raised in the report, but merely
provide, as we were asked to do, an impact statement.

Afilias, Ltd.
Global Name Registry
NeuLevel, Inc.
Public Interest Registry
RegistryPro, Inc.
VeriSign, Inc.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Chair, gTLD Registries Constituency
e-mail: jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxx


GNSO Secretariat