[gnso-vi-feb10] The role of the GAC in connection with this WG

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello All:

 

Many team members expressed reservation about me interjecting the role of
the GAC into the subject matter of this Working Group. I would like to
explain how constructively involving the GAC will likely speed up the launch
of the new gTLD process, whereas alienating/ignoring them will only slow
things down. During the joint Board/GAC Working Group Meeting in Nairobi
(see http://nbo.icann.org/node/8935), there was a constructive discussion of
soliciting GAC involvement earlier in the policy development process as
oppose to later.  While some read the GAC communiqué reference to ?single
registrant TLDs? as to having nothing to do with permitting registries to go
direct, the first use of term ?single registrant TLD? to my
knowledge/recollection was in the CRAI report. The very report that cited
the market inefficiencies in requiring the same entity to be both an ICANN
accredited registrar and registry. If reasonable minds differ should we not
go straight to the source (the GAC Chair) and seek clarification now, to
prevent delays in the future?

 

The potential need for GAC intervention could also be constructive as
several threads on this Working Group have discussed about the difference
between giving a domain name way, and charging for a domain name. Right now
ICANN?s General Counsel, Mr. Jeffrey has presented the community with a
one-size fits all contract with regard to pricing. The GAC has recognized
the problems with such a one size fits all approach in the following excerpt
from their Nairobi Communiqué:  

 

iii) instead of the currently proposed single-fee requirement, a cost-based
structure of fees appropriate to each category of TLD would a) prevent cross
subsidisation and b) better reflect the project scale, logistical
requirements and financial position of local community and developing
country stakeholders who should not be disenfranchised from the new TLD
round.

 

Unfortunately, there is no mechanism by which the ICANN community can
discuss the fees it imposes upon registry operators. First it off limited
per the explicit terms of the picket fence. Second it is a bi-lateral
contract between ICANN and the registry Operator. The fact that ICANN is
proposing the ability to make unilateral changes is even more scary.
Therefore, if we want to have this discussion of how ICANN charges
registries, this Working Group should indentify some of the various business
models in which true innovation/competition could take place via vertical
integration and then work in collaboration with the GAC to get ICANN to
answer the broader funding question which is essential off limits to us.

 

Best regards,

 

Michael