Re: [ga] Summary Email

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chris,
   
  No.!  Rules must rule the day. No judgment or competition. Meet the paradigm criteria and be allowed or go home. OTOH = Meet the criterian and it is autopilot from here to terminal.
   
  Can Rosa sit in the front of the bus or is it up to the white driver. Rules is Rules, competition is for the wealthy.
   
  My old mentor Melvin Belli told me his son would be a great lawyer. I of course asked why would Ceasar make a great lawyer? His answer, after Ceasar failed the Bar exam, was "cuz I i said so" The King of Torts can do no wrong,  No Chris go with hard rules not tempermental aristocracy. 
   
  Back awhile ago my best man roomed with a freak who would smoke two bong hits and two Coors every morning before practice for downhill Ski practice. the man was crazy by he qualified. Damned if he did not bring my country a gold reaching speeds of over 85 mph on a pair of razors. Qualify first then let us see your hand.
   
  e

kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  "Unfortunately there is a general lack of trust among the community for
the ICANN staff to do the right thing. However, I have an idea which I
would like to circulate. ICANN could create a Competition Office, not
unlike the Ombudsman that would be independent from ICANN staff
oversight and report directly to the Board. This Competition Office
would be tasked with reviewing new registry service requests and making
referrals to the national competition authorities. This Competition
Office would in NO WAY impact any review by the standing technical
committee which has its own mandate. This independence competition
office would act as an important safeguard to prevent a registry
operator from trying to exert undue influence on the staff during its
consideration of a funnel request. The elegance of this approach is that
it would not need any tweak to the registry contracts just an amendment
to the bylaws to create this office."

Unfortunately, due to past experience, if ICANN were to do this, they would
appoint more than half that committee with people who are shareholders in or
have others interests tied to the Registries and Registrars. Conflict of
Interest section must be nonexistant within ICANN glossary of terms.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael D. Palage" 
To: 
Cc: "'Thomas Narten'" 
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 10:25 AM
Subject: [ga] Summary Email


> Hello All:
>
> In the interest of efficiency I have tried to consolidate a number of
> discussions into a single email. I would like to start off by saying
> that things have been remarkably civil which is a positive thing. I
> think when people engage in a constructive dialog without personal
> insults and attacks much more gets accomplished.
>
> So before continuing lets start with the perspective of the various
> participants.
>
> Myself - Michael Palage. As most of you should know based upon my
> numerous abstentions during my tenure on the Board. I am consultant to
> various registrations authorities (registrars and registries), including
> Afilias which currently has its contract up for review. I have had no
> discussion with Afilias in connection with these posts. In fact they
> would probably disapprove of my comments to date as they have taken a
> very low key approach since the posting of the contracts. The principle
> reason I responded to these posts was George's initial strongly worded
> email in response to Vint's email. Listen, Vint and I do not agree on
> several issues, during the three years on the board there were a number
> of issues in which we were in violent disagreement. Notwithstanding
> these differences of opinion, I always respected him. As previously
> stated I agree with Vint's statement, and I have just tried to
> articulate the reason why.
>
> George Kirikos, successful businessman because unlike myself he does not
> qualify for the small business discount within the business
> constituency. George has a portfolio of around 500 domain name which are
> mostly registered in the .COM TLD. John Berryhill calls him brilliant so
> that is a good enough endorsement for me to listen and respect what he
> has to say. George is also an active participant within the business
> constituency and is very knowledge of domain name matters.
>
> Tim Ruiz. Vice President of Domain Services for GoDaddy, the largest
> domain name registrar in the world. I also hold Tim in high regard based
> upon the number of years we spent together in the registrars
> constituency.
>
> Danny Younger. The closest representation to an at large stake holder
> that I know of. Very knowledgeable on ICANN matters and its history.
> Does not own any domain name portfolio that I am aware of, and is not
> currently employed by any registration authority.
>
> Chris McElroy. Do not know Chris, nor if he has any domain name
> portfolio, but he seems to be involved in helping clients select domain
> names. He also seems knowledgeable on DN related matters.
>
> Karl Auerbach. Former ICANN Board member. I have known Karl for many
> years, and having completed a three year term on the ICANN Board, he is
> someone that I hold in much higher regard prior to my service on the
> board. Karl provides an important reference point to when things were
> much simpler in the domain name space. Although he can be noisy and loud
> at times, he is a good person whom I also respect.
>
>
> So with regard to the topic of the proposed (biz, .info and .org)
> registry contracts which have no price control provisions here are the
> various position as I understand them based upon the discussion to date.
>
> George is a strong advocate of an air tight contract that would regulate
> price, and would require a competitive rebid on a periodic basis. Based
> upon some email exchange on the business constituency list. George has
> also expressed concern for a registry operator to offer discount pricing
> to different registrars. George is a strong advocate of Karl's statement
> that you should not repeat the same mistake twice.
>
> Just to the right of George is Tim which expresses concern about the
> ability of a registry operator to raise the price of services. However,
> unlike George, Tim and the other large registrars are not opposed to
> registry operators from giving them volume discounts.
>
> On the opposite end of the spectrum is the proposed .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG
> contracts as well as the existing .MOBI, .JOBS, .TRAVEL, .CAT and .TEL
> which have no price caps/controls, and include preferential renewal.
>
> To the left of that is the .NET and proposed .COM registry contracts
> which have price caps on the number and size of increases, but include
> preferential renewal terms.
>
> Where I find myself is somewhere in the middle between the .NET/.COM
> contracts and the proposed .INFO, .BIZ and .ORG contracts, and let me
> explain why.
>
> Back in 2001 I vehemently opposed the VeriSign renegotiation contracts
> which provided VeriSign with its current preferential renewal term, just
> ask anyone in attendance at the Melbourne meeting. However, once that
> provision was done, it set in process a logical progression where all
> contracts would have that provision. Now although George and Karl argue
> that you should not repeat the same mistake twice, it is kind of hard to
> create competition within the registry space if only the dominate player
> holding the crown jewel (.COM) has preferential renewal terms, and no
> one else does. Things have only become further complicated with the
> preferential renewal term being incorporated into the .TRAVEL, .JOBS,
> .CAT, MOBI, .NET and .TEL contracts. I just can't see how to unring this
> bell. Some people say it is easy, just do it, but I seriously question
> how to do it and withstand the potential legal challenges.
>
> So to me the preferential renewal terms are a non-starter.
>
> Now some people will point to the current contractual PDP process
> underway. The problem with that is that General Counsel has stated that
> it was outside of scope from the beginning, although his recommendation
> was overridden by a supermajority vote of the council. The question the
> community needs to ask itself, who do you think the board will listen to
> ICANN's General Counsel or the community?
>
> Turning to the removal of price controls. I had significant reservations
> about how the decision to remove price caps arose, however, I lost that
> argument as well. Given, that scenario I find myself in a situation
> where the ICANN Board has taken certain steps which I believe limit the
> scope of what they can do in connection with the current .INFO, .BIZ and
> .ORG contracts as well as the VeriSign .COM agreement.
>
> Now many people have argued that we need to undo the mistakes and
> correct the contracts, as previously stated, I do not see this as a
> viable legal option. Obviously some may call me a defeatist or paid
> shill of the registries, hopefully the constructive dialog will prevent
> that from happening.
>
> Where I have tried to focus my energies is on how to tweak the
> existing/proposed contracts to seek the common goal which I believe most
> people have expressed. How to prevent a sole source provider from
> abusing their power within the market. I believe the focus needs to be
> on the referral to national competition authorities. As Tim properly
> notes this is a chicken and an egg scenario because ICANN controls the
> initial decision of referral.
>
> Unfortunately there is a general lack of trust among the community for
> the ICANN staff to do the right thing. However, I have an idea which I
> would like to circulate. ICANN could create a Competition Office, not
> unlike the Ombudsman that would be independent from ICANN staff
> oversight and report directly to the Board. This Competition Office
> would be tasked with reviewing new registry service requests and making
> referrals to the national competition authorities. This Competition
> Office would in NO WAY impact any review by the standing technical
> committee which has its own mandate. This independence competition
> office would act as an important safeguard to prevent a registry
> operator from trying to exert undue influence on the staff during its
> consideration of a funnel request. The elegance of this approach is that
> it would not need any tweak to the registry contracts just an amendment
> to the bylaws to create this office.
>
> The one area where I believe some addition change in the registry
> contract should take place is in connection with the 45 day window. I
> believe that is just too small of a window to serve as an important
> safety net.
>
> Turning to Danny's question about why metadata from the zone is outside
> the current PDP, I do not have an answer that I can share. However, I do
> believe the non-discriminatory access provision to this data which
> Thomas pointed out is an important safeguard to prevent any abuse.
>
> Karl, answering your email on new TLD would take a lot longer and I have
> already exceeded my non-billable ICANN allotment for the past couple of
> days. Perhaps a phone call to catch up on things after I release my new
> TLD implementation framework white paper?
>
> In closing, I understand the anger and frustration that the community
> feels with regard to how we got here. It is the same anger and
> frustration that I tried to articulate during the Luxemburg meetings.
> Over the past year, I have tried to focus on making the best out of the
> current situation. I respect that some people will go down with the ship
> arguing that ICANN needs to correct its past mistakes and redo the
> registry contracts and re-insert price caps and competitive rebids.
> What I am trying to articulate is how can we enhance the current
> contracts to provide the community with additional safeguards against a
> sole source provider that may potentially abuse its position in the
> marketplace.
>
> I need to get some billable work done as well as some work around the
> house. This will probably be my last email until next week, so no cheap
> shots in the mean time. Thanks again for the constructive dialog that
> the community has engaged in with regard to this discussion.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael D. Palage
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.6/427 - Release Date: 8/24/06
>
>



 			
---------------------------------
Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.