ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] 25 September 2006 Board Meeting

  • To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [ga] 25 September 2006 Board Meeting
  • From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
  • Cc: jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx, vint@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=T/wuFlbVlsEirCODmxJZNSeILIpmbIgkRi7M4Q4beCBK/e878DT731pHvrYA8PopaNrdJ5veD8/8uTZO56gFfTI3q3MrNQ5NlpJ0yogP85wFh7eezx1lJhdVhE64dl3hRcb8/0H+7pAjU/O7Jt45AmhRQT9+oinrZYGM5KWGzzg= ;
  • In-reply-to: <20060929135304.23157.qmail@web52215.mail.yahoo.com>
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hello,

--- Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The Board agreed that if they received the responses
> before October 10th, that they would discuss the
> pending agreements again during their next scheduled
> board meeting on 18 October 2006.

I trust that the registries will post those responses to the public
mailing lists that were created by ICANN

http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-28jul06.htm

or alternatively on ICANN's "Correspondence" page, so that those
responses are open and transparent.

It appears to me that the 6-month period in Section 5.2.2 of the .biz
and .info contracts might already be in play at this time. Absent a
time-line as to when the six month time limit will have been triggered,
I call on ICANN to disclose whether we are now in a position to
exercise that clause, and call for competing bids through a public
tender process:

http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/unsponsored/registry-agmt-11may01.htm

"5.2.2. Only after the six-month period described in Subsection 5.2.1
may ICANN call for competing proposals from potential successor
registry operators for the Registry TLD. Registry Operator shall be
eligible, to the same extent as similarly situated entities, to submit
a proposal to such a call. To the extent that the Renewal Proposal
demonstrates (i) substantial service in the interests of the Internet
community, (ii) enhancement of competition for registration services,
and (iii) enhancement of the utility of the DNS, such demonstration
shall be among the specific factors considered in ICANN's evaluation of
any competing proposals, but the choice from among competing proposals
shall be in ICANN's sole discretion."

It makes sense to keep one's options open, to see what other potential
successor registry operators for .biz and .info are willing to offer
the public. That competition can only serve to make the contracts
better for the public, not worse. I ask that ICANN post a public call
for competing proposals immediately, or disclose the first date they
will be able to do so under section 5.2.2. [.org has similar
provisions, although their contracts expire years from now.]

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>