[alac] RE: ICANN ALAC comments on proposed new registry contracts

["Vint Cerf" <vint@xxxxxxxxxx>]

John,

This is very helpful and timely - we understand the issue about formality
but this will be quite useful in and of itself.

Vint
 


Vinton G Cerf
Chief Internet Evangelist
Google
Regus Suite 384
13800 Coppermine Road
Herndon, VA 20171
 
+1 703 234-1823
+1 703-234-5822 (f)
 
vint@xxxxxxxxxx
www.google.com
 

-----Original Message-----
From: John L [mailto:johnl@xxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 5:43 PM
To: Vinton G. Cerf; Paul Twomey
Cc: ALAC -- ALAC; alac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: ICANN ALAC comments on proposed new registry contracts

Hi.  Two weeks ago the ICANN ALAC promised more comprehensive comments on
the three proposed registry contracts in time for tomorrow's board meeting,
and here they are.  We haven't had time to get formal signoff due to limited
time and the problems you know all too well of people in different time
zones on every continent, but every member who has responded said he or she
is in agreement, and I believe this fairly represents the consensus of the
ALAC.

We've tried to keep it short, but if you want a one sentence summary: this
is the wrong time to change registry contracts, so please don't.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@xxxxxxxx, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies", for the ALAC

-------
At Large Advisory Committee comments on the proposed new contracts for .ORG,
.BIZ, and .INFO.

The At Large Advisory Committee views the proposed contracts with great
concern, and believes that several of the proposed changes will have a
severe negative effect on the At Large community.  We urge the Board to make
no changes to any of these contracts at this time.

1.  The .ORG contract has three years to run.  There is no need to change it
now.  The other two contracts are not in any immediate danger of expiring,
either, so the rush to revise them is baffling and contrary to ICANN's
principles of stability and transparency.

2.  We are particularly concerned that the rush to approve new contracts
gives the appearance that ICANN is attempting to subvert the GNSO's policy
development process.  Contracts that expire before the GNSO has completed
its current policy development process on registry contractual conditions
should be renewed on the same terms as in the expiring contract, subject to
revision to conform with adopted policy recommendations.

3.  Once a user has selected a domain, that domain's registry is the
monopoly supplier of renewals.  The domain name provides, by design, a
unique opportunity to establish a stable identifier online.
Predictable pricing from those monopoly suppliers is an important part of
the stability of the net.  Millions of people have bought domains on the
expectation of being able to renew them at about the same price they have
paid in the past.  Prepaying for 10 years is not a substitute for stability,
both because 10 years is not a long time in business and personal events,
and because it forces users to buy renewals they wouldn't otherwise buy,
purely to defend against registries raising the price should a domain become
notably successful.

4.  Registries are, by all reports, profitable at the current capped price
and can and do make needed investments in infrastructure.
Indeed, the experience of the .net renewal strongly suggests that even at $3
there would be multiple well qualified candidates to run these three
registries.

5.  The current system of fixed price caps has worked well for registries,
registrars, and most importantly for users since ICANN began.  Removing
price caps would benefit registries at the expense of users.  If registries
want to remove price caps, they need to show a community benefit that
outweighs the substantial costs imposed on users, which they have not done.

6.  Traffic data, even that which has undergone some anonymization, may
still contain sensitive personal or competitive information.  At a minimum,
more public consultation should be held before registries are permitted to
sell or otherwise exploit that data.  Compliance of such provisions with
existing privacy laws in all the countries where domains are registered must
be assessed.

7. These contracts are explicitly designed for the benefit of users of the
DNS.  Remove the "no third-party beneficiaries" language to enable relying
registrants and users to police their own interests.

8. Periodic re-bidding serves as a stronger check on bad behavior than the
weak arbitration and mediation provisions within the contract.
The presumptive perpetual renewal should be dropped.