[council] Email questions/comments that were not addressed in the public forum

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello All,

We received emails from two individuals that were intended to be read
out during the GNSO public forum on Friday.

We can discuss these at our next meeting.

From: Richard Henderson:

(1)  Regarding .pro and the use of proxy registrants

With reference to the use of proxy registrants like EnCirca to
circumvent the restrictions on who may acquire .Pro domains, may I ask
what actions and conclusions have been arrived at by ICANN staff or
Board, as requested at the last ICANN Meeting? Specifically, concerns
were expressed that the use of proxy registrations in the .Pro registry
might in themselves contravene the intentions of the ICANN Agreements
that .Pro should be a restricted TLD limited to verified professionals;
and concerns were also expressed that this style of proxy registration
by a registrar like Encirca could set a precedent which might subvert
the restricted nature of future sTLDs such as .Travel.
 
ICANN staff were requested to address this issue and Tina Dam was to
deal with this. Does ICANN endorse this kind of proxy registration for
acquiring future sTLDs which might otherwise be restricted by the spirit
and intention of the ICANN Agreements. If so, what is the point of
having the restrictions and verification procedures in the first place?



(2) Regarding forming an individual users constituency with the GNSO

Given the need for ICANN to demonstrate as wide a base of worldwide
support as possible, at a time when its authority and legitimacy are
being challenged, would consideration and support be given to a petition
to establish an Individual Users Constituency within the GNSO? This
would enable a wider spectrum of informed participation from individuals
who do not 'fit' other constituency definitions, and also offer
representation within the GNSO to what is in reality the largest
constituency of all: the millions of individuals who use the Internet
and its DNS for a multiplicity of valid reasons. This constituency would
promote individual membership and stimulate participation and
involvement in a way that ALAC (which is institution-based) has frankly
failed to do outside the GNSO. It would also strengthen the authority
and identity of the GNSO, widen its base, and answer those critics at
the UN who feel that ICANN pays little account to the global community
of internet users.
 
This petition may be presented by long-term participants before, or at,
the Wellington meeting. Do members of the GNSO welcome this initiative
in principle?



(3)   Proposed .com agreement

Who will actually benefit from the ICANN-Verisign Agreement apart from
ICANN and Verisign? In the context of ICANN's commission to act as
steward over the fair distribution of the DNS, and the condition of
promoting competition as set out in its MoU with the DoC, how do the
ICANN staff and Board justify a "deal" which offers a perpetual
monopoly, guarantees built-in price hikes, and sets out terms not
available to other registries?
 
In the context of its commitment to the *whole* internet community, why
did it not encourage a bidding process and seek to bring down prices;
why did it elect to couple the resolution of other legal matters with
the unrelated issue of finding the best terms for the Internet community
with regard to the .com TLD; why did it fail to involve its own
constituencies in a negotiation process based on "bottom-up" consensus;
why did it hand Verisign a package which provides so little incentive to
drive prices down and customer service up?
 
Why are the Internet Community and ICANN's own constituencies being
foisted with a privately-brokered deal which seems to be presented "top
down" and which seems to be to the advantage of Verisign, but also seems
to threaten the interests of other entities as well as the competitive
imperative upon which the MoU is supposedly grounded?


>From Danny Younger:


(4)   Escrow/Protection of data on registrants

I know that the Council has many items on its plate, but I continue to
remain concerned about the security of registration data.  Although the
RRA requires registrars to escrow registrant data, we are all aware that
this has not been happening -- our registrant registration data remains
at risk.  My question:  What will the Council do on behalf of individual
registrants to ensure that our registration data is safe?


(5) Participation in new generic TLD process

The GNSO Council is poised to move forward on the issue of new TLDs.  In
keeping with past practice it will doubtless appoint a task force to
deal with the issue.  What provision will the GNSO Council make for
those that have no constituency affiliation to participate in the GNSO
task force process?


Regards,
Bruce Tonkin