[alac] Re: Draft ALAC statement on ICANN and Verisign - under discussion at today's ALAC meeting

[ICANN At-Large - Denise Michel <michel@xxxxxxxxx>]

> John L wrote:
>
> > Revised version:
> >
> > clarify oversight of icann and oversight of vrsn
> >
> > data privacy
> >
> > dependence on vrsn
> >
> > minor cleanups and clarifications
>
> D R A F T* UNDER DISCUSSION *NOT FINAL
>
> Concerns on the proposed ICANN / Verisign settlement
> from the At Large Advisory Committee
>
> 1.  We are concerned about the loss of accountability and oversight both 
> of the community over ICANN and of ICANN over Verisign.  The external 
> oversight of ICANN's budget currently provided by the registrars will no 
> longer exist. The settlement provides no meaningful checks on Verisign's 
> behavior, short of conduct so egregious as to void their contract.  As 
> the registrars have pointed out, the proposed "consensus process" is new 
> and untested.
>
> 2. We are concerned about the use and misuse of personal data.  Under 
> the agreement, Verisign is allowed to do whatever data mining they want 
> of COM zone usage and access.  For example, they could sell DNS traffic 
> data about pepsi.com to Coca Cola, or about democrats.com and other 
> political sites to the Republican National Committee.  If ICANN sees 
> itself as a trustee for the Internet community, it should provide 
> appropriate protections for the community's data. We are also concerned 
> that such data mining would be illegal in countries with data privacy 
> laws, and could place registrants from such countries in legal jeopardy.
>
> 3.  We believe that the proposed price increases for the COM registry 
> are inappropriate, since other domains such as .NET have considerably 
> lower fees and no provision for regular increases.  We are also 
> concerned about the tripling of ICANN's per-domain fee.  Although the 
> incremental cost to each individual user will be low, the aggregate cost 
> to users will be in the tens of millions of dollars per year.  Market 
> forces can have an effect on .COM registry prices in two ways: (a) 
> periodic rebids, and (b) a substitute service. The current proposal does 
> away with the rebidding, and we doubt that .BIZ or .INFO or CCtlds are a 
> substitute for current registrants who already have branded their .COM 
> address.
>
> 4. We are concerned by the lack of economic and legal analysis of the 
> effects of the proposed settlement. If the .COM registry is a de-facto 
> monopoly, it requires stricter regulation than if it is not. Analysis by 
> a qualified economist of the price sensitivity and substitutability of 
> COM and other domains, based on the extensive historic data, should help 
> understand the situation. Similarly, qualified legal analysis of the 
> likelihood of success of ICANN's and Verisign's suits would help 
> quantify the legal risks and costs the settlement would avoid.
>
> 5. The proposed settlement makes Verisign the permanent source of the 
> majority of ICANN's revenue.  By making itself dependent on an entity 
> not accountable to the public, ICANN endangers its independence and 
> hence endangers ICANN's public trust.
>
> 6.  We are deeply concerned by the lack of transparent process.  The 
> current (2001) .COM contract had a specific renewal timeline that has 
> been ignored, since the settlement includes a new contract that would 
> void the current one.  ICANN offered no timetable or process for 
> consideration of the proposed settlement until forced to by the CFIT 
> lawsuit.  The community does not know whether it has a  month or a year 
> to collect its input and offer its advice, nor whether it may be 
> possible to modify the proposed settlement or it simply has to be 
> accepted or rejected.
>
> 7.  With these considerations in mind, the ALAC advises the board to 
> reject the proposed settlement, to see qualified advice on the econmic 
> and legal aspects of any proposed settlement, and to seek a settlement 
> that addresses our concerns.