[council] RE: [gnso-dt-wg] purely personal pow

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxrodenbaugh@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Tim, your analysis is right on.  I also hope for a clear answer from
Jeff, whose comments purported to represent the Registry Constituency, and
also from ICANN Counsel.  

-Mike Rodenbaugh

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 4:29 AM
To: Neuman,Jeff
Cc: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] purely personal pow


Jeff,

Yes, that was a very good non-answer, and that fact that it is a
non-answer concerns me. Seriously, this is a critical issue to
understand the gTLD operators view on.

If the registries believe that a consensus of Internet stakeholders is
only valid if gTLD operators are included as stakeholders and not that
they necessarily have to agree with the policy for it to be considered a
consensus policy, then it's pretty cool that you got that actually
stated in your contract with the ICANN.

But if the registries believe that their contracts with ICANN require
agreement of the gTLD operators on an issue in order for consensus to
exist on that issue, then the rest of the stakeholders in this game are
operating on very mis-guided assumptions - little things like fairness
and equal consideration of our views.

So which is it? And Avri, I hope we get a quick answer from ICANN
Counsel on their opinion of this.


Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] purely personal pow
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, February 26, 2008 8:25 am
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx>


Tim,

I know this is going to sound like a non-answer to your question, but
the only thing I am going to say at this point is that there were a
number of tradeoffs made by the registries in the new agreements
(whether for .com, .biz, .info, etc.) that were made. ICANN insisted on
this new definition of Consensus Policies (as opposed to the old
definition in the 2001 agreements - which by the way the 2001 agreements
mirror your registrar accreditation agreement). In the new definition
for registries (but not registrars), there is no longer a voting
requirement for consensus policies and there are less protections for
the registries (unlike the 2001 agreements). In addition, we lost the
indemnity protections we used to have. In exchange, we wanted to make
sure that gTLD Registries were included as key players in determining
what consensus policies were, especially where we were the most impacted
by the policy changes. We wanted to avoid situations (like this almost
became), where the Council disregarded the opinions of the registries
and came up with policies without adequate consultation or analysis of
the impacts of the new policies/solutions on the registries.

I hope that gives you some insight. And I know if ICANN changed (or
wanted to change) the definition of "Consensus Policies" in the
registrar agreements like it did for the registry agreements, you would
be just as vigilant as we are being.

Getting to the matter at hand, I think making sure the process is right
and the community has adequate time to respond to the actual solution
being presented will go a long way.

Thanks.

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & 

Business Development 

NeuStar, Inc. 
e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 12:29 AM
To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] purely personal pow


Alan,

It isn't the registry that has to worry about fraud. It's the registrar
(they are consumer facing). There is no registry without an AGP that we
deal with that makes any provision for fraud. We (the registrar) just
eat it. If that extends to the gTLD registries with whom accredited
registrars do most of their business, it will increase fraud costs
considerably.

I can't comment for my constituency yet on Jeff's proposal, but
personally it looks acceptable with one exception, and I agree with the
21 day comment period. The exception is with the reporting. The identity
of the registrar should be revealed only to ICANN in the registry report
and not made public unless ICANN determines that the exception granted
was not within policy.

But I do have a question for Jeff and Chuck.

Jeff quoted section 3.1(b)(iv) of the .com agreement which says:

"Consensus Policies and the procedures by which they are developed shall
be designed to produce, to the extent possible, a consensus of Internet
stakeholders, including the operators of gTLDs."

That same sentence is in the .biz and .info agreements as well (and
probably others). I'm confused by the thread that followed the comments
that included that quote. Jeff and Chuck, is it either of your opinions
that the quote above means that in order for consensus to exist it must
include the consensus agreement of the gTLD operators? Or Jeff, were you
intending to point out that a consensus of Internet stakeholders was
only valid if gTLD operators were included as stakeholders but not that
they necessarily have to agree with the policy?


Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] purely personal pow
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, February 25, 2008 5:14 pm
To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx


Jeff, as you have pointed out, many registries do not have an AGP. 
Presumably they have developed other cost-effective mechanisms to 
address fraud and other legitimate AGP-type applications.

That being said, if we can use the existing AGP-mechanisms for those 
registries that already have them, and still eliminate the more 
unsavory uses, I can readily support it.

Alan

At 25/02/2008 09:41 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

>Avri,
>
>If there is a truly a consensus policy to get rid of the AGP, then how
>are the registries going to offer a refund service on an objective
basis
>without a highly manual process costing much more than a $6.42 cents
per
>domain name. In other words, the only system of refunds that would not
>dramatically increase the costs of provisioning domain names for
>registries and registrars is an automated grace period.
>
>I believe "market forces" are what led to the Add-Grace Period in the
>first place. In addition, "market forces" are what led to NeuStar and
>Afilias' proposal. However, if there is a consensus policy to get rid
>of the AGP, then in essence, we are taking market forces out of the
>equation.
>
>
>
>Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
>Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services &
>
>Business Development
>
>NeuStar, Inc.
>e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
>Behalf Of Avri Doria
>Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 9:22 AM
>To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [gnso-dt-wg] purely personal pow
>
>
>Hi,
>
>I cannot make the meeting tomorrow, I have one of my rare, these days
>anyway, paying jobs (IGF) and will be busy all week. So I figured I
>would send a note indicating my personal point of view in this issue.
>
> From a personal point of view, I wonder if doing away with the grace
>period is not the right thing to do. This would leave it up to the
>registries as to what sort of refund service they provide to the
>registrars in this matter. I was asked a question during the ND
>meeting which went something like: " Why is this not left up to
>_Market Forces_. For example, credit card companies charge stores a
>small fee for each refund they are forced to make to a customer. If
>the store is responsible for a lot of refunds, then the fee goes up.
>And if the store causes too many then they lose their account ..."
>Now I do not consider myself an expert on _Market Forces_ or on how
>and when they work, but the question seemed like a good one. One I
>was not able to answer. I am not currently a supporter of this, so
>am not arguing for it at this point. I just wonder if this option has
>been explored sufficiently.
>
>In terms of the current somewhat compromise motion, if the DT
>continues to have a majority in favor of sending it as a
>recommendation to the council, I personally would prefer to see it go
>out for, at least, updating of constituency statements, and perhaps
>public comment, before the council votes on it, and would support the
>Drafting Team coming to such a recommendation.
>
>Likewise, I think that constituting an open WG on a 120 days schedule
>to review the issue and make a recommendation would also be something
>I could support. For this we would need a very tight and specific
>charter. The DT could recommend such a charter, or it could be
>developed in another way.
>
>Thanks and best wishes for a peaceful and productive meeting
>
>a.