Re: [alac] 3rd settlement draft

[Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Looks good.  This section should be moved from the end of para 4 to 
the end of para 5 again.

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.

I also agree that 2 pages with a larger font would help readability.

Thanks.
--Wendy



At 11:23 AM 12/1/2005 -0800, John L wrote:
> Complete, I hope.
>
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl@xxxxxxxx, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet 
> for Dummies",
> Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Mayor
> "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
>
> -----------
> D R A F T
>
> Concerns on the proposed ICANN / Verisign settlement
> from the At Large Advisory Committee
>
> 1. We believe that it would be more appropriate to separate the 
> lawsuit settlement from the contract renegotiation. If the 
> settlement requires changes to the contract, ICANN and Verisign can 
> amend the current contract to reflect settlement terms.
>
> 2.  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, unless they misbehave so 
> badly that ICANN  voids their contract. As the registrars have 
> pointed out, the proposed "consensus process" is new and untested.
>
> 3. 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 
> greenpeace.com and other political sites to governments whose 
> policies they oppose. As a trustee for the Internet community, ICANN 
> 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.
>
> 4.  We believe that the proposed price increases for the COM 
> registry are inappropriate, since the registry is no longer required 
> to offer any justification for them.  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.
>
> 5. We are concerned by the lack of economic and legal analysis of 
> the effects of the proposed settlement. To the extent that the .COM 
> registry is a  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.
>
> 6. 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.
>
> 7. We share ICANN's concerns with the current budget and planning 
> process, which depends in large part on registrar approval and 
> quarterly financial contributions from numerous sources. We endorse 
> a budget and funding mechanism that would provide ICANN greater 
> certainty in the budget planning process and reduce the 
> administrative burden on ICANN of billing and collections. 
> Nevertheless, we believe very strongly that ICANN should consult 
> with the registrant and At Large community before it fundamentally 
> reshapes its funding mechanism through new contracts with the 
> registries. Ultimately, funds paid to ICANN from registrars or 
> registries come from us, the At Large community. We encourage ICANN 
> to engage the community in a larger conversation about how it should 
> be funded and how its budgets should be created and approved.
>
> 8.  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.
>
> 9.  With these considerations in mind, the ALAC advises the board to 
> reject the proposed settlement, to seek qualified advice on the 
> econmic and legal aspects of any proposed settlement, and to seek a 
> settlement that addresses our concerns.

--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
Chilling Effects: http://www.chillingeffects.org