Re: [ga] GNSO Council: Taking 21 months to arrive at bad decisions

[elliot noss <enoss@xxxxxxxxxx>]

mike, danny, do you feel this way for new tlds or for com/net as well?

On Sep 4, 2007, at 3:00 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> Jon,
>
> I believe I find myself with Danny on this issue, and it should  
> come as
> no surprise to you based upon our previous in-depth discussions on  
> this
> issue. In fact I specifically raised this point in the recently closed
> public forum on new gTLDs, see
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtldfinalreport-2007/msg00073.html
>
> However, I am a little confused over your claims that allowing
> registries to go direct will place consumers at risk. If the  
> registry is
> providing domain name registration services either directly or
> indirectly to the registrant, ICANN has a direct contractual
> relationship with the registry.
>
> To demonstrate how registries can go direct and still protect
> registrant's interests, consider the following four gTLDs: .EDU, .GOV,
> ..MIL and .INT. While these are all legacy gTLDs, they are nonetheless
> still gTLDs in which the respective registries value very highly the
> interests of their registrants. However, none of these four TLDs uses
> registrars. The registry merely deals with the registrant. As I have
> previously said, I do believe that at this time the default mechanism
> for domain name distribution should be through ICANN accredited
> registrars, however, I do believe there are situations in which this
> requirement is a burden and impedes competition and innovation.
>
> While some registrars have put forward the compromise of allowing  
> ICANN
> accredited registries to own ICANN accredited registrars, I find this
> "compromise" rather self serving given that a number of ICANN  
> accredited
> registrars are likely to be submitting bids on new gTLDs next year
> either directly or through one of their sister companies. Given that
> this comprise only raises the cost for a new registry entrant to the
> market place that wishes to go direct, I believe this fact goes  
> directly
> to the legal concerns raised by Danny.
>
> Obviously if a registry goes direct there is the need for scrutiny to
> make sure that a registry does not abuse its position as a sole source
> provider. However, as has been demonstrated in the case of .EDU, .GOV,
> ..MIL and .INT, consumers are not being harmed even though they are I
> some cases paying higher per domain name registrant costs than
> equivalent registrants in the .COM space.
>
> Just my two cents and I look forward to a rather constructive  
> dialog on
> this topic.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On  
> Behalf
> Of Nevett, Jonathon
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 12:29 PM
> To: Danny Younger; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ga] GNSO Council: Taking 21 months to arrive at bad
> decisions
>
>
> Danny:
>
> In the wake of the RegisterFly controversy, you and other folks on  
> this
> list have been advocating for ICANN to enforce requirements in the
> Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) in order to better "protect
> registrants."  I have been very vocal in encouraging ICANN to enforce
> the requirements in the RAA.  Doing so is good for registrants and the
> DNS, as well as helps to level the competitive playing field for
> registrars.
>
> You also have been advocating for changes to the RAA to add additional
> requirements or regulations on registrars.  Indeed, as of this  
> morning,
> you alone account for over 70% of the posts on the comment forum on
> potential changes to the RAA.  I am leading a group of registrars that
> will work with ICANN to discuss potential changes to the RAA.
>
> With this background, I was quite surprised to read the below post  
> from
> you, in which you argue that the current model of having registries  
> only
> selling domain name services through registrars is a "poor
> recommendation" for new TLDs.  I can't imagine how you can argue that
> ICANN should add additional requirements on registrars on one hand and
> then seek the abolishment of the current registrar model for new  
> TLDs on
> the other.  Only ICANN-accredited registrars are bound by the terms of
> the RAA.  If registries sold domain name services outside of the
> registrar channel, ICANN would have no contractual relationship  
> with the
> sales channel and no rights whatsoever to enforce.  How could opening
> the floodgates to permit any entity to sell such services without any
> contractual requirements place registrants in a more protected  
> position?
>
>
> The GNSO Councilors must have understood this to be the case when they
> approved Recommendation 19 without dissent.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On  
> Behalf
> Of Danny Younger
> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 10:09 AM
> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [ga] GNSO Council: Taking 21 months to arrive at bad  
> decisions
>
> The GNSO new gTLDs PDP was launched quite some time
> ago and has arrived at a number of horrible
> recommendations.  Consider recommendation #19 that
> would require all new gTLD registries to rely
> exclusively on ICANN-accredited registrars.  Public
> comments thus far have shown opposition from a chinese registrar
> (BeijingIDC.com), from Michael Palage, from Karl Auerbach, from  
> Guanghao
> Li, from Milton Mueller, and from Vittorio Bertola.  Beyond that,  
> we now
> see that the .museum proposed agreement also serves to undermine the
> proposed recommendation.  Earlier, I too, raised my concerns with the
> prospect of anti-trust issues.  Finally, even the registries have  
> cited
> concerns with this recommendation -- see their "Impact Statement" at
> http://www.gtldregistries.org/news/2007/2007-06-07-01.pdf
>
> This leads one to ask:  If that many well-informed and reasonable  
> people
> are in opposition to a particular GNSO recommendation, then how did  
> the
> process allow for this poor recommendation to be agreed upon by the  
> GNSO
> Councillors?  What is so fundamentally wrong with GNSO mechanisms that
> results in bad decision-making?
> Logically, we should also be asking "How do we go
> about correcting the problem?"
>
> I'm told that the Board Governance Committee's Working
> Group on GNSO Improvements will soon be meeting with
> current and former GNSO Council Chairs prior to
> issuing a new draft recommendation.  Let's hope that
> this committee asks some of the hard questions lest
> they arrive at nothing but cosmetic changes in their
> new iteration of "GNSO improvements".
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> __
> ____________
> Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user
> panel and lay it on us.
> http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7