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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Mike

Help me understand exactly what you want.   Is it this:

Same entity is accredited both as registry and registrar for a TLD?  (do you 
want them to sign two separate agreements, or do you want the registry and 
registrar agreements folded into one?)
Entity can provide names to the public? (so its customers details appear in the 
WhoIs?)
Entity pays registry fees ($25K per year minimum plus $0.25 for every name over 
50K names)
Entity doesn't pay registrar fees?

RT


On Mar 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> 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
>  
>  
>