Re: [ga] ICANN Board unanimously approves .biz/.info/.org registry agreements by 13-0

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Roberto. I appreciate you answering as to your reasoning behind how you 
would vote on the issue.

You said "but I thought that one point was missing, that was IMHO even more 
important than the rise of the price cap: the levelling of the field, to 
allow all competitors to play by the same, or at least extensively similar, 
rules. "

Differing prices based on the value of specific domains would not equal a 
level playing field and those contracts have a hole allowing that to happen.

Many of us commented on that very topic. The registry reps stated but we 
would never do that. We asked why then does that ability need to be in the 
contract if you would never do that. Only received nonanswers to that 
question.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://www.articlecontentprovider.com




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Dominik Filipp'" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>; "'Veni Markovski'" 
<veni@xxxxxxxx>; "'icann board address'" <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "'General Assembly of the DNSO'" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:40 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN Board unanimously approves .biz/.info/.org registry 
agreements by 13-0


> Dominik,
>
> On the main subject, I was not a voting member at that time, although I 
> have
> followed closely all the debate, within ALAC and within the Board. Based 
> on
> this, I can tell you why I would most probably vote in favour of the
> agreements if we had the vote now.
> It all started with the .com agreement. It has been a serious debate, and 
> at
> the end the call was close. Anyway, it was approved, and it is now part of
> the landscape.
>
> You might disagree, but one of the guiding factors for the Board is
> uniformity of treatment for all participants. The famous "level playing
> field". The moment that one specific operator has clauses that other
> competing operators don't have, we have a problem. The GNSO attacked the
> problem by trying to define a set of policy rules, and asked the Board to
> defer decision allowing debate in Sao Paulo. The Board postponed approval,
> initially scheduled at the November teleconference, therefore accepting 
> the
> request of the Name Council.
>
> In Sao Paulo, from my observation point, two things could have happened:
> either the GNSO was close to a consensus recommendation, suggesting
> therefore the Board to wait more and propose modified clauses for the
> contracts that could come from the GNSO (at the same time planning to 
> amend
> all other contracts when coming up for renewal), or the GNSO was still far
> from reaching consensus, and in that case there was very little
> justification for not providing to other registry operators clauses 
> similar
> to the ones in the .com agreement.
>
> The second case happened.
>
>
> On the other issue raised, the 90%, 95%, or 99%, or whatever % of the
> comments being against, one cannot just count the for and against, and
> consider the total: what ICANN requested were comments, not a referendum.
> So, IMHO, ICANN needed to evaluate the motivation for the ÿes"or "no", and
> identify the factors for agreement or disagreement.
> I confess that I did not read the comments one by one, but from the 
> summary
> I read it seemed to me that the two factors that were originating the
> protest were the raising of the price cap and (to a lesser extent) the
> renewal presumption.
>
> To my reading, it was obvious that consumers would be against any raise in
> price, even if only potential. Having joined this circus when the cost was
> $35, my instinctive reaction was to calculate how many years of 
> consecutive
> raise it will take to get back to the 1998 prices. I don't want to
> underestimate the importance of price, but I thought that one point was
> missing, that was IMHO even more important than the rise of the price cap:
> the levelling of the field, to allow all competitors to play by the same, 
> or
> at least extensively similar, rules. This would, still IMHO, bring 
> benefits
> to the consumers.
>
> You might argue that my analysis is faulty: fine with me, what I wanted to
> do was not to convince you, but to explain how I would vote should the 
> item
> be re-voted today, and why.
>
>
> The last point is the domain tasting. It is incorrect that it has been on
> ICANN's radar screen only in Sao Paulo. The matter has been debated
> extensively, but the point is that the Board did not feel to take action 
> in
> absence of a complaint by who was perceived to be the suffering part, i.e.
> the registry that had a lot of traffic and DB operations for little or no
> benefit.
> It was ALAC, in spite of the claimed uselessness ;>), who brought the
> problem up from a different point of view, the damage to the registrants 
> and
> users of the system.
> Incidentally, there was a panel already in Marrakesh on Domain Name 
> Tasting,
> I participated representing ALAC.
>
> Regards,
> Roberto
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dominik Filipp
> > Sent: 11 December 2006 15:47
> > To: Veni Markovski; icann board address
> > Cc: General Assembly of the DNSO
> > Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN Board unanimously approves
> > .biz/.info/.org registry agreements by 13-0
> >
> > Veni an all,
> >
> > that's exactly the point. If over 90% comments are against
> > the proposal I don't understand how the proclaiming support
> > for the bottom-up consensus can hold any further.
> >
> > But this is also about priorities. There are several serious
> > topics that have been known for months (perhaps years) but
> > have not been sufficiently taken into account.
> >
> > a) It's, for instance, the persisting problem with domain
> > renewals/transfers. Some registrars (Registerfly, e.g.) from
> > time to time repeatedly fail to renew/transfer domains
> > causing the domains to expire. This is not only about
> > deceitful behavior of such registrars but also about the
> > inherent flaws in the renewal/transfer mechanisms that allow
> > this. The last case being discussed right now is about the
> > poor guy who failed in renewing his domain name at
> > Registerfly though he properly paid for it. What is this? He
> > paid but got nothing! And I'm not mentioning the more
> > sophisticated and insidious practices that take place during
> > transfers. What steps have been done to avoid this on general
> > basis? Is the revision of the mechanisms being considered? Is
> > anybody helping this guy work it out right now? Has anyone
> > sent an official letter (or warning) to Registerfly in order
> > to clarify and fix the problem? Or, just the usual phrase
> > 'ICANN is not involved in any dispute...' is being applied.
> >
> > b) It took many months until the domain tasting practice has been
> > (hopefully) officialy recognized in Sao Paulo as a serious
> > problem worth of being addressed. Bob Parsons from Go Daddy
> > has appealed ICANN to take some action, tons of articles on
> > the Internet have been addressing this issue for months, here
> > on the forums we've been discussing this as well, but I still
> > cannot find it listed among the 'current issues' on the
> > ICANN's main page! There are several registrars founded
> > solely for this fraudulent purpose. Nobody can even perform a
> > simple domain lookup on their sites let alone to register a
> > name or find a partner provider allowing public registrations
> > for that registrar. They seem not to meet the basic registrar
> > criteria but are still ICANN-accredited! Have you ever verified this?
> >
> > c) Who do you think does the following section in the new
> > .com agreement serve
> >
> > "Traffic Data. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude
> > Registry Operator from making commercial use of, or
> > collecting, traffic data regarding domain names or
> > nonexistent domain names."
> >
> > Is it registrant? Hand in hand with domain tasting this is a
> > real nightmare for registrants. Soon we will see all
> > looked-up names taken and filled with AdSense advertisement
> > making money for the tasting registrars and other
> > speculators. And, of course, also for the registries that
> > will be paid for delivering the traffic data directly to
> > them. All that without paying for registration. Or, can I as
> > a registrant, afford to buy the traffic data from Verisign
> > and taste names during first 5 (10, 15, ..., 300) days for
> > free like registrars can? Do we want to unleash a secondary
> > black market selling domain names for hundreds dollars, as a
> > logical consequence?
> >
> > And I could be mentioning other things. But what I see is a
> > priority directed towards financial interests of some
> > registries and registrars, and indirectly ICANN itself. The
> > registrants are given much less attention. Sure, there are
> > useful topics being discussed currently, but the priority
> > seems to be set up this way.
> >
> > Is it then so illogical to come to conclusion that ICANN has
> > been found not representing the public interests?
> >
> > Dominik
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of kidsearch
> > Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 4:33 PM
> > To: Veni Markovski; Andy Gardner
> > Cc: General Assembly of the DNSO
> > Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Board unanimously approves
> > .biz/.info/.org registry agreements by 13-0
> >
> > ... If 99% of the public comments are against a proposal,
> > then how do you justify saying that A. You pay attention to
> > the bottom up consensus on issues and B. That you are serving
> > the public good by going against what the public said they wanted?
> >
> > Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> > http://www.articlecontentprovider.com