<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Comments on Registry Agreement Amendments
- To: gtld-amend-15feb10@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Comments on Registry Agreement Amendments
- From: Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 13:13:29 -0400
ICANN has proposed that New TLD registry agreements should have a new amendment
procedure that is not contained in the existing registry agreements. The
Registries Constituency argues that the current amendment process is
sufficient, but has offered to establish a new requirement for good faith
negotiations at the request of either party to the agreement.
For issues inside the so-called picket fence and those related to security and
stability issues, I agree with the Registries Constituency. There is no need
for a new amendment process on top of the three that already exist -- agreement
between the registry and ICANN; Consensus Policies through community Policy
Development Process; and Temporary Policies established unilaterally by a
two-thirds vote of the ICANN Board. The current amendment scheme works well
and provides the community with the ability to provide input to potential
changes to the registry agreements. Granting ICANN the ability to unilaterally
change the agreement beyond a Temporary Policy or instituting a new mechanism
for changes that already are covered by Consensus Policy or Temporary Policy is
unnecessary and would violate ICANN's commitment to bottom up, multi
stakeholder, and transparent policymaking.
For issues outside of the picket fence and outside of the Consensus Policy or
Temporary Policy procedures, there may be some benefit in a new amendment
procedure to assist with scalability and consistency among registry agreements.
Such a new procedure should not -- in any way -- grant ICANN the ability to
unilaterally amend the registry agreement. Rather, it should be a fair process
that includes consensus support from the registry community, as well as input
from the rest of the community. Moreover, the subject matters of any new
procedure should be limited and specifically outlined in the registry
agreement. Some issues, such as registry fees to ICANN, the scope of Consensus
and Temporary Policies, the term of the agreement, and the subject matters
covered by Consensus and Temporary Policies should be specifically exempt.
We have had a public consultation on this issue and have discussed it as a
community for over a year. It is time to make a decision.
Jonathon Nevett
President, Domain Dimensions, LLC
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|