Re: [ga] Summary Email

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

  Well I am both glad and curious why you didn't single me out.  None
the less I am mostly in agreement with where you have been going
recently with your recent remarks.  Well done.

Michael D. Palage wrote:

> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827