<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] .biz, .info & .org comments
- To: "Nevett,Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] .biz, .info & .org comments
- From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 07:05:54 -0700
- Cc: Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Web-Based Email 4.6.0
<div>Thanks Jon. Well done. Our comments should be posted later
today.<BR></div>
<div><BR>Tim <BR></div>
<DIV id=wmMessageComp name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT:
blue 2px solid">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject:
[registrars] .biz, .info & .org comments<BR>From: "Nevett,
Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Thu, August 24,
2006 6:17 pm<BR>To: "Registrars Constituency"
<registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR><BR><o:SmartTagType name="PersonName"
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"></o:SmartTagType>
<STYLE>
#wmMessageComp st1\:* {behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</STYLE>
<STYLE>
#wmMessageComp /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, #wmMessageComp
li.MsoNormal, #wmMessageComp div.MsoNormal {margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New
Roman";}
#wmMessageComp p.MsoHeader, #wmMessageComp li.MsoHeader, #wmMessageComp
div.MsoHeader {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
#wmMessageComp p.MsoFooter, #wmMessageComp li.MsoFooter, #wmMessageComp
div.MsoFooter {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
#wmMessageComp a:link, #wmMessageComp span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
#wmMessageComp a:visited, #wmMessageComp span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple; text-decoration:underline;}
#wmMessageComp p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
#wmMessageComp pre {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Courier New";}
#wmMessageComp p.default, #wmMessageComp li.default, #wmMessageComp
div.default {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-autospace:none;
font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:black;}
#wmMessageComp span.EmailStyle22 {mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Arial; color:windowtext;}
#wmMessageComp span.EmailStyle23 {mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Arial; color:navy;}
#wmMessageComp span.EmailStyle24 {mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial; color:navy;}
#wmMessageComp @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in
1.0in 1.25in;}
#wmMessageComp div.Section1 {page:Section1;}
#wmMessageComp /* List Definitions */ @list l0 {mso-list-id:927688625;
mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:-1953216358 1419144936
1279696860 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713
67698715;}
#wmMessageComp @list l0:level1 {mso-level-number-format:roman-upper;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in; mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.5in;}
#wmMessageComp @list l0:level2 {mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7; mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; font-family:Symbol;
color:windowtext;}
#wmMessageComp @list l0:level3 {mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in; mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
#wmMessageComp @list l0:level4 {mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;}
#wmMessageComp @list l0:level5 {mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;}
#wmMessageComp @list l0:level6 {mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;}
#wmMessageComp @list l0:level7 {mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;}
#wmMessageComp @list l0:level8 {mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;}
#wmMessageComp @list l0:level9 {mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;}
#wmMessageComp ol {margin-bottom:0in;}
#wmMessageComp ul {margin-bottom:0in;}
</STYLE>
<DIV class=Section1>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=navy size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy">I have just filed the following
comments on the proposed .biz, .info, & .org agreements.
Please send in comments on your own or feel free to endorse my comments
by sending e-mails to the following addresses:
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=black size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=black size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><A
href="mailto:biz-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx";>biz-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx</A></SPAN></FONT><FONT
color=navy><SPAN style="COLOR: navy"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=black size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><A
href="mailto:info-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx";>info-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx</A><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=black size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><A
href="mailto:org-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx";>org-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx</A></SPAN></FONT><FONT
color=navy><SPAN style="COLOR: navy"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=navy size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR:
navy"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=navy size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy">Thanks.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=navy size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR:
navy"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=navy size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy">Jon<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=navy size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR:
navy"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=navy size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR:
navy"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">On behalf of Network Solutions, LLC, I am
writing to raise several concerns with the proposed registry agreements
to operate the .biz, .info and .org registries. This is not a
comment on whether the existing registry operators should continue to
operate the respective registries. Indeed, we have no concerns
with the performance of the current operators. Rather, our
comments are limited to concerns with the timing, approval process, and
substance of certain provisions of the draft agreements.<FONT
color=navy><SPAN style="COLOR: navy"> </SPAN></FONT>
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in;
mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2"><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN style="mso-list:
Ignore">I.<FONT face="Times New Roman" size=1><SPAN style="FONT: 7pt
'Times New
Roman'">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></B><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT:
bold">ICANN Should Not Renew These Agreements At This
Time<o:p></o:p></SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.25in"><FONT face="Times New
Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Renewal of these proposed gTLD registry
agreements at this time is premature. There is simply no policy
or contractual reason that compels ICANN to make a final decision now
on these proposals: The current <FONT color=black><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">.org registry agreement does not expire until 2009
and t</SPAN></FONT>he .biz and .info agreements expire in 2007.
While the agreements may have been part of longstanding contract
negotiations, such discussions were conducted in private without
community input. From the perspective of the ICANN community,
therefore, this is a fast-track review, which is unwarranted for a
number of reasons.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">First, many of the provisions of the proposed
.com Registry Agreement with VeriSign about which concerns have been
raised also are included in these proposals. For example, the
automatic renewal provision in the proposed .com agreement apparently
has been used as a model for these agreements. In light of the
fact that the U.S. Department of Commerce (“DOC”) –
with the advice of the U.S. Department of Justice – is reviewing
the proposed .com agreement with a specific emphasis on the competitive
implications of the renewal and pricing provisions, it would be
inappropriate to renew the agreements at this time without waiting for
the benefit of these agencies’ views. Furthermore, ICANN
should not attempt to fast-track approvals of other gTLD agreements
with similar anti-competitive provisions, such as automatic renewal, in
a misguided attempt to add support for its proposed .com agreement.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=default><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=black size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Second, the DOC also is considering whether to
renew its Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with
ICANN. As part of this process, the DOC called for public input
regarding ICANN’s agreements with registries, recognizing that
the MOU also “contains a series of core tasks for ICANN, which
include establishing appropriate relationships with the organizations
that form the technical underpinnings of the Internet [Domain Name
System (‘DNS’)].” Registry agreements are among
ICANN’s most important contractual relationships underpinning the
DNS. Because the anticipated amendment of the MOU is inextricably
intertwined with the proposed registry agreements, the agreements should
not be considered until the underlying MOU is renewed.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Third, ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting
Organization (“GNSO”), which is responsible for developing
ICANN policies, has established a Task Force to review certain contract
issues related to the renewal of registry agreements. The Task
Force is working toward providing policy recommendations to the ICANN
Board on issues including (1) whether ICANN should enter into registry
agreements with automatic renewal provisions; (2) whether there should
be price caps for registries with and without market power; and (3)
whether a registry operator with market power should pay ICANN more,
less, or the same in a per-name fee than a registry without market
power. Considering that this policy review is well underway and
that these contracts don’t expire until 2007 (.info & .biz)
and 2009 (.org), there is no justification for this blatant attempt to
circumvent ICANN’s bottom-up policymaking process.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Troublingly, the proposed contracts provide a
limitation against subsequent consensus policies changing these
contracts in regard to most, if not all, of the issues under
consideration by the Task Force. Therefore, even if ICANN reaches
consensus on these policy issues, they would not apply to these
registries if the contracts are approved prior to the implementation of
the policy. Therefore, ICANN should not finalize essentially
permanent contracts that cannot be changed by Consensus Policy, while
key policy issues remain under review by the Task Force.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE:
12pt">Recommendation</SPAN></FONT></B> – ICANN should await the
outcome of the MOU and .com review processes, as well as the ongoing
GNSO Task Force evaluation, before approving virtually irrevocable
renewals. If for some reason ICANN elects not to wait for
guidance from these reviews for the two agreements that expire in 2007,
the renewals either (1) should be limited to one or two-year extensions
of the existing contracts to allow for the incorporation of inputs from
these processes, <I><SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: italic">or</SPAN></I> (2)
should be renegotiated to provide that any approved Consensus Policies
that come out of the existing GNSO Task Force should apply to these
registries. <o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in;
mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2"><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN style="mso-list:
Ignore">II.<FONT face="Times New Roman" size=1><SPAN style="FONT: 7pt
'Times New
Roman'">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></B><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT:
bold">Automatic Renewal Forgoes Competition and Threatens
Security<o:p></o:p></SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P><PRE><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt;
FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'">The proposed agreements provide for
“automatic renewal” provisions, virtually guaranteeing that
the agreements would continue in perpetuity. The only limitation
on renewal is in the event of a repeated and material breach of one of
just three sections of the agreement. Even then, renewal would
occur unless an arbitrator has ruled that an operator has breached one
of the three provisions and such breach had not been cured within a
reasonable time after the arbitrator’s award. The
operators’ control of the registries would be, therefore, of
likely infinite duration, and ICANN would be abandoning the bulk of its
responsibilities to oversee the operations of the registry operators and
to protect the DNS. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></PRE><PRE><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt;
FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></PRE>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">The automatic renewal provisions in these
agreements (and in the proposed .com agreement) are very different than
the renewal provisions in the existing .biz, .info, and .org registry
agreements, as well as the presumptive renewal provision in the
existing .com agreement. Under the existing .biz, .org and .info
registry agreements, the operator must submit a Renewal Proposal to
ICANN, which can decide to accept it at its “sole
discretion.” In the Renewal Proposal, each operator must
justify the renewal request with a detailed report on the registry
operations, proposed improvements or changes in price or other
terms. After a requisite review period, ICANN, at its sole
discretion, may seek competing proposals, including a bid from the
incumbent, weighing factors such as its “enhancement of
competition for registry services.” Again, the selection
among the proposals is solely at ICANN’s
discretion.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">The existing .com agreement also requires
VeriSign to submit a proposal justifying why the contract should be
renewed. VeriSign would be entitled to a four-year extension
unless ICANN demonstrates that it is in material breach of the
agreement (which ICANN has alleged in the pending litigation), it has
not have provided a “substantial service” to the Internet
community in its performance, or it seeks to charge a price higher than
$6 (which it has in the proposed .com contract).
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">By comparison, under the proposed renewal terms
for .biz, .info and .org, ICANN’s discretion on renewal is
essentially discarded. There is no longer any requirement on the
operator to justify a renewal claim based on performance, eliminating
another important safeguard for ICANN oversight. Further, ICANN
would no longer be able to seek competing proposals at its discretion,
let alone in the case of a material breach of any, but three,
provisions of the agreements. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P><PRE><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt;
FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'">Awarding a registry contract
<st1:PersonName
w:st="on">to</st1:PersonName> an opera<st1:PersonName
w:st="on">to</st1:PersonName>r in perpetuity is neither the only means
nor the best means <st1:PersonName w:st="on">to</st1:PersonName> ensure
infrastructure investment. The term of the contract should be of
sufficient length for the registry operator to recover investments,
whereas the assurance of a perpetual franchise can easily lead an
opera<st1:PersonName w:st="on">to</st1:PersonName>r <st1:PersonName
w:st="on">to</st1:PersonName> believe that investment is
unnecessary. Clearly, registry opera<st1:PersonName
w:st="on">to</st1:PersonName>rs have been willing <st1:PersonName
w:st="on">to</st1:PersonName> invest in and develop registries awarded
without automatic renewal provisions. Regular review of past
performance and rebidding motivates good behavior by ensuring
accountability and the security and stability for the registry.
The assurance of perpetual renewal of any TLD reduces incentives to
comply with ICANN’s policies and principles and provide a secure
and stable registry.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></PRE>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">ICANN staff members inappropriately cite the
current .net and the proposed .com registry agreements as justification
for approving these automatic renewal provisions in the .biz, .org, and
.info agreements. First, the .com agreement has not been approved
and is facing a great deal of scrutiny and criticism related to
ICANN’s proposed renewal provision. Second, as we all know,
the .net agreement was approved and signed by ICANN with no public
review at all on these points and should not be used as a fair
precedent for future agreements. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">We do not oppose renewing registry agreements
when the registry opera<st1:PersonName w:st="on">to</st1:PersonName>r
has performed well during the term and the renewal is on competitive
terms. ICANN’s ability <st1:PersonName
w:st="on">to</st1:PersonName> carry out core principles such as
promoting security and stability, competition, transparency and
accountability are significantly restrained by automatic renewal
provisions that foreclose future review in all but the most extreme of
circumstances. One of the best market mechanisms <st1:PersonName
w:st="on">to</st1:PersonName> introduce competition in<st1:PersonName
w:st="on">to</st1:PersonName> registry operations, and <st1:PersonName
w:st="on">to</st1:PersonName> ensure exemplary performance by registry
opera<st1:PersonName w:st="on">to</st1:PersonName>rs, is through
competitive bidding for renewals. The proposed renewal provisions
abandon any opportunity for ICANN to use that mechanism in the future,
for no reason.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE:
12pt">Recommendation</SPAN></FONT></B> – ICANN should eliminate
the automatic renewal provisions in the proposed registry
agreements. To ensure meaningful contract oversight by ICANN and
to motivate good behavior, registry operators should be required to
justify renewals and meet certain continuing qualifications and
standards. At a minimum, before ICANN approves a contract with an
automatic renewal provision, it should publicly seek a panel of
competition and security experts to opine on whether automatic renewal
provisions in sole source contracts create an incentive or disincentive
to invest in a registry.<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in;
mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2"><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN style="mso-list:
Ignore">III.<FONT face="Times New Roman" size=1><SPAN style="FONT: 7pt
'Times New
Roman'">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></B><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT:
bold">The Proposed Termination Provisions are Too
Weak<o:p></o:p></SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Unlike the proposed .org, .biz and .info
agreements, the terms of the existing registry agreements provide a
menu of options under which ICANN can terminate the agreements before
they expire. These termination rights provide ICANN with
important tools to exercise its oversight function, which unfortunately
would not exist if the proposed agreements were
approved.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">For example, under the current agreements,
ICANN could terminate if the registry operator is convicted of a felony
or other serious offense related to financial activities, is disciplined
by the government for dishonest acts or misuse of others’ funds,
or if an officer is convicted as a result of financial malfeasance and
is not immediately removed. Similarly, ICANN could terminate if
the operator has made a “material misrepresentation, material
inaccuracy, or materially misleading statement” in its TLD
application. Indeed, ICANN has the right to order sanctions
against the registry operator if it failed to fulfill certain
contractual obligations related to the performance of the
registry. The failure to pay such sanctions could result in
termination of the agreement. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">The proposed terms of the .org, .biz and .info
renewals, however, would substantially circumscribe ICANN’s
termination rights as referenced above, limiting ICANN to circumstances
in which the operator is in material breach of one of only three
provisions and it fails to cure the breach, loses at arbitration or
court, and still has not corrected the breach at the direction of an
arbitration decision or court order.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Recommendation
–</SPAN></FONT></B> Termination provisions should support
ICANN’s oversight responsibilities. The termination
provisions in the proposed agreements would enable ICANN to essentially
abdicate its oversight in this area. ICANN should strengthen its
termination rights in these three proposed agreements, as well as in
all new registry agreements. <o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in;
mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2"><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN style="mso-list:
Ignore">IV.<FONT face="Times New Roman" size=1><SPAN style="FONT: 7pt
'Times New
Roman'">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></B><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT:
bold">Price Controls Should Be Addressed as a Policy
Question<o:p></o:p></SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=black size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: black">The existing .org, .biz and .info
registry agreements contain pricing controls on registry services that
the proposed renewals would lift, without explanation or
analysis. Instead, ICANN staff merely asserts that the proposed
lifting of these price controls came after “extensive
consideration and discussion.” Furthermore, it is unclear
whether or not the proposed contracts permit differential pricing by
domain name. Unfortunately, to date there has been no <I><SPAN
style="FONT-STYLE: italic">public</SPAN></I> consideration and
discussion of these important policy issues regarding pricing for gTLD
registries. ICANN staff has not provided any policy analysis or
rationale for the lifting of the price caps, nor any evidence that
external experts have been consulted to arrive at the conclusion that
such pricing controls should be lifted or the </SPAN></FONT>economic
and competition implications of pricing controls<FONT color=black><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=black size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR:
black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=black size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: black">On behalf of ICANN, the GNSO Task
Force also is studying the policy question of price controls for
registry services. </SPAN></FONT>The issues of whether or not
price caps should be imposed and whether differential pricing should be
permitted are of sufficiently broad enough importance to the ICANN
community at large that they should be addressed with the publicly
disclosed guidance of competition experts<FONT color=black><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"> as part of a bottom-up representation
policymaking process. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=black
size=3><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR:
black">Recommendation </SPAN></FONT></B><FONT color=black><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">– ICANN should seek independent advice,
including from competition authorities, on whether dominant and/or
non-dominant registries should be subject to price caps. This
independent evaluation should be made public for the purposes of
seeking input from the ICANN community. Once this guidance is
received, the ICANN community would be in a position to determine
whether price caps are appropriate for the specific registries at
issue. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=black
size=3><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR:
black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in;
mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2"><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=black
size=3><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR:
black"><SPAN style="mso-list: Ignore">V.<FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=1><SPAN style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New
Roman'">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></B><B><FONT color=black><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; COLOR:
black">Conclusion<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">The
proposed registry renewals at issue attempt to undertake by contractual
fiat what ICANN has yet to decide with targeted expert advice that is
part of a transparent decisionmaking process. To this end, the
Board must ensure the GNSO, as ICANN’s policy arm, is afforded a
reasonable amount of time to complete a review of contractual policy
issues for gTLDs.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">The stated goal of the GNSO’s Policy
Development Process is to determine “what policies are
appropriate, for the long-term future of gTLDs within the context of
ICANN’s mission and core values.” By comparison,
nothing in ICANN’s posting for public information on the proposed
registry renewals addresses how the terms of the agreement would support
core principles such as competition, transparency, security, and
accountability. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">ICANN’s interest in moving forward on
these proposals long before the agreements expire is perplexing in
light of the long-standing concerns that members of the ICANN community
have raised about proposed provisions such as automatic renewals.
Network Solutions has advocated a presumption <I><SPAN
style="FONT-STYLE: italic">against</SPAN></I> automatic renewal and
weak termination terms that remove ICANN’s ability to encourage
competition and to protect the DNS in the face of demonstrated
“bad behavior.” <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=black
size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: black">We urge ICANN to
first address through policymaking deliberations key components of
these proposed agreements before executing contracts that cannot be
subsequently altered via Consensus Policy.
</SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:
Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|