RE: [registrars] .COOP agreement

["Mitchell, Champ" <Cmitchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Fellows, 

 

I generally try to stay out of these disagreements. I believe you both
have good points. Werner (and Marcus) are correct that a speaker's point
of view should not be discarded without consideration just because he
has an interest in an issue. The truth is that few people would find the
time to craft a message on an issue unless they had an interest.

 

On the other hand, Ross is correct that a speaker's interest is a factor
to be considered in weighing his or her comments. 

 

Werner, the one place I would strongly disagree with what you said is
where you say:

 

"It provides minimal protection to registries (and their constituents)
who cannot afford to have near full-time lobbyists in every ICANN
working group. And this protection merely consists of an ability to be
heard." 

 

Werner, with all respect, that is just badly inaccurate. All the money
spent on all of the lobbyist ever employed by all registrars almost
certainly would not equal a single year of one registry's lobbying
expenses (of course I am referring to VeriSign). So for a member of the
registry community to try to portray themselves as part of a "have not"
group really does you a disservice and undermines the credibility of a
position that is otherwise worthy of consideration. 

 

On the substance of the position, I share Ross's concern over ICANN
constantly abrogating its oversight responsibilities. I sincerely
believe the policy arguments we put forward in the .com contract
dispute. History proves that one can have a sole source provider who is
heavily regulated or one can have no regulation but competition among
providers. Either can work to the benefit of users. What always leaves
users and the overall community as victims and losers is allowing a sole
source provider to determine price or policy without either competition
or review and supervision. 

 

Frankly, I am not much concerned about the .coop agreement itself. The
sTLD in question is unlikely to have enough market to matter. What I
truly care about is the continuing precedent of ICANN constantly
abrogating its responsibilities and turning them over to the very people
most likely to abuse the power (and that is NOT a shot at CORE, I find
you very honorable people). This is especially true where ICANN
continueS to increase ITS budget and revenues claiming that a
substantial motivation is the need to fund stronger enforcement. Paul
Twomey told me to my face that one of the reasons such increases were
needed was to increase regulation of policy violations and abuses within
our industry. Having obtained the increase we now see a denial of
responsibility. I do not believe the Internet community or ICANN itself
will be well served by this approach in the long run. So on that basis,
I am concerned about the ability to unilaterally or bilaterally decide
to disregard consensus policies. 

 

Having said that, I expect ICANN to continue on this course until it
self-destructs, which eventually it will. Best, Champ

 

W. G. Champion Mitchell

      Chairman & CEO

 

 

O: (703) 668-5200   |  www.networksolutions.com

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of CORE Secretariat
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 8:25 AM
To: Ross Rader
Cc: CORE Secretariat; Tim Ruiz; Nevett, Jonathon; Registrar Constituency
Subject: Re: [registrars] .COOP agreement

 

Hi Ross,

 

I understand it is is easy to let oneself be carried away in a 

"we-versus-them" view of the world. In the one you are proposing here, 

the would be registrars+users on one side, an the registries+TLD 

sponsors on the other.

 

Just remember other dividing lines are being proposed as well. The 

London School of Economics' proposed a "registration interests" view, 

where registries and registrars are seen as the same crowd. Or, I might 

distinguish between "high-volume interests" (such as Tucows and 

Verisign) and "diversity interests" (my version of "the rest of us").

 

What about recognizing the ICANN world as being divided between those 

who can afford extensive lobbying, and those who cannot? Consensus 

policies tend to be shaped according to the interests of the former, and


to ignore the latter. In this respect, the mechanism in the proposed 

.coop contract is simple and elegant. It provides minimal protection to 

registries (and their constituents) who cannot afford to have near 

full-time lobbyists in every ICANN working group. And this protection 

merely consists of an ability to be heard.

 

But we might just as well just worry about well-designed contracts from 

a public-benefit perspective. The contracts must be able to deal with 

future, yet unknown issues.

 

It is actually also an advantage for the timeliness of consensus 

policies. *If* there is a path obtain exemption in a deserving special 

case, *then* it is much easier faster to devise a consensus policy for 

the general case.

 

Regards,

 

Werner

 

 

 

Ross Rader wrote:

> CORE Secretariat wrote:

> 

>> I conclude that this phrase actually does deserve to be in all 

>> sponsored TLD agreements.

> 

> As a registry operator, I'm not surprised to see CORE take this
position.

> 

> For the rest of us who do business as registrars and work with 

> registrants, the existence of these exemptions is a concern.

> 

> ICANN has no right to delegate away the policy responsibilities of the


> community via its contracts with registry operators and - yet it 

> continues to do so.

> 

> -ross

 

 

-- 

---

CORE Internet Council of Registrars   http://corenic.org

WTC II, 29 route de Pre-Bois, CH-1215 Geneva, Switzerland

Tel +4122 929-5744 Fax +4122 929-5745 secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxx