[ga] ALAC Draft on ICANN-VeriSign Settlement -- Under Discussion, Not Final

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac/msg01379.html
D R A F T* UNDER DISCUSSION *NOT FINAL


Concerns on the proposed ICANN / Verisign settlement
from the At Large Advisory Committee

1. We are concerned about the loss of accountability
and oversight both of the community over ICANN and of
ICANN over Verisign. The external oversight of ICANN's
budget currently provided by the registrars will no
longer exist. The settlement provides no meaningful
checks on Verisign's behavior, short of conduct so
egregious as to void their contract. As the registrars
have pointed out, the proposed "consensus process" is
new and untested.

2. We are concerned about the use and misuse of
personal data. Under the agreement, Verisign is
allowed to do whatever data mining they want of COM
zone usage and access. For example, they could sell
DNS traffic data about pepsi.com to Coca Cola, or
about democrats.com and other political sites to the
Republican National Committee. If ICANN sees itself as
a trustee for the Internet community, it should
provide appropriate protections for the community's
data. We are also concerned that such data mining
would be illegal in countries with data privacy laws,
and could place registrants from such countries in
legal jeopardy.

3. We believe that the proposed price increases for
the COM registry are inappropriate, since other
domains such as .NET have considerably lower fees and
no provision for regular increases. We are also
concerned about the tripling of ICANN's per-domain
fee. Although the incremental cost to each individual
user will be low, the aggregate cost to users will be
in the tens of millions of dollars per year. Market
forces can have an effect on .COM registry prices in
two ways: (a) periodic rebids, and (b) a substitute
service. The current proposal does away with the
rebidding, and we doubt that .BIZ or .INFO or CCtlds
are a substitute for current registrants who already
have branded their .COM address.

4. We are concerned by the lack of economic and legal
analysis of the effects of the proposed settlement. If
the .COM registry is a de-facto monopoly, it requires
stricter regulation than if it is not. Analysis by a
qualified economist of the price sensitivity and
substitutability of COM and other domains, based on
the extensive historic data, should help understand
the situation. Similarly, qualified legal analysis of
the likelihood of success of ICANN's and Verisign's
suits would help quantify the legal risks and costs
the settlement would avoid.

5. The proposed settlement makes Verisign the
permanent source of the majority of ICANN's revenue.
By making itself dependent on an entity not
accountable to the public, ICANN endangers its
independence and hence endangers ICANN's public trust.

6. We are deeply concerned by the lack of transparent
process. The current (2001) .COM contract had a
specific renewal timeline that has been ignored, since
the settlement includes a new contract that would void
the current one. ICANN offered no timetable or process
for consideration of the proposed settlement until
forced to by the CFIT lawsuit. The community does not
know whether it has a month or a year to collect its
input and offer its advice, nor whether it may be
possible to modify the proposed settlement or it
simply has to be accepted or rejected.

7. With these considerations in mind, the ALAC advises
the board to reject the proposed settlement, to see
qualified advice on the econmic and legal aspects of
any proposed settlement, and to seek a settlement that
addresses our concerns.



	
		
__________________________________ 
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs