RE: [gtld-council] Outcomes of the Brussels meeting on policies for contractual conditions

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Marilyn for this clarification; indeed I missed the
earlier debates within ICANN and it's important to have around
an "institutional memory" like yourself ;). Anyway, my point is
we need to come up with a definition that shows that gTLDs as
domains are "geography-blinded, don't pertain to any specific
region."

Mawaki

--- Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thanks, Mawaki.
> 
> Excellent points. However, we also need to be cautious about
> the term
> "global". All TLDS resolve globally, and that is part of the
> end to end
> principle and commitment of ICANN. We had a debate something
> like this very
> early on at ICANN because there was a view that cc's were
> national only in
> scope, and of course, while they have national
> characteristics, they resolve
> globally.
> 
> It occurs to me that this definition will need vetting with
> the ccNSO/cc
> fuller community. 
> 
> 
> Marilyn Cade
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mawaki
> Chango
> Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 11:31 AM
> To: Bruce Tonkin; gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Outcomes of the Brussels meeting
> on policies for
> contractual conditions
> 
> Hello Bruce & TF,
> 
> This is a contribution/reply to an old email... from Brussels.
> I'd like to suggest the following definition for gTLD.
> 
> gTLD = a generic TLD is a top or first level Internet domain
> name that is unique, global in scope and defined through an
> exclusive contract with ICANN; it includes but is not limited
> to
> the current sponsored and unsponsored TLDs.
> 
> You (esp. techies and policy staff; pls no lawyers ;)) may
> want
> to confirm if "unique" and "exclusive contract" are Ok, as I
> see
> them, but I'd like to insist having "global in scope" or
> something like that (to mean they're geography-blinded, don't
> pertain to any specific region). Because in my interactions, I
> have come to realize that (a) signicant (number of) people in
> the US seem to think gTLDs are american TLDs and the rest of
> the
> world should be content with ccTLDs only. No offence... just
> clarity.
> 
> Best,
> Mawaki
> 
> --- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Hello All,
> > 
> > The following were areas of agreement amongst the
> participants
> > in the
> > Brussels meeting for policy guidelines that relate to
> > contractual
> > conditions.   These will be incorporated into an initial
> > report.  The
> > intent will also be to include a "model" or "reference"
> > agreement that
> > complies with these guidelines to assist in providing a
> > practical
> > example of how the guidelines may be applied.
> > 
> > 
> > Use "gTLD licence holder" instead of "Registry Operator" as
> > this has a
> > range of meanings.
> > 
> > "gTLD" = "a generic TLD that has a contract with ICANN,
> > includes but is
> > not limited to the current sponsored and unsponsored TLDs"
> > 
> > 
> > 1.  There should be a frame agreement to provide some level
> of
> > consistency (e.g as for the registrars accreditation
> > agreement), with
> > the ability for staff to have delegated authority to
> approve.
> > 
> > 2.  Any material alterations to the frame agreement, subject
> to
> > public comments before approval by the ICANN Board.
> > 
> > 
> > 3. The contract should strike the right balance between
> > ensuring
> > certainty for market players and preserving flexibility of
> > ICANN to
> > accommodate the rapidly changing market, technological and
> > policy
> > conditions.
> > 
> > 4. The initial term of commercially reasonable length (e.g
> > default 10
> > years, although may be changed on a case-by-case basis).
> > 
> > 
> > 5. There should be a renewal expectancy.     A contract
> would
> > be renewed
> > provided that the license holder is not in material breach
> of
> > the
> > contract, or has not been found in repeated non-performance
> of
> > the
> > contract, and provided the license holder agrees to any new
> > framework
> > contract conditions that are reasonably acceptable.    Any
> new
> > framework
> > contract would take into account the consensus policies in
> > place at that
> > time.
> > 
> > 6. There should be an ability to terminate the contract if
> the
> > gtld
> > licence holder has  been found in repeated non-performance
> of
> > the
> > contract.
> > 
> > 7. During the term of the agreement, the registry must
> comply
> > with new
> > or changed consensus policies to one or more of the
> following
> > areas:
> > -   (1) issues for which uniform or coordinated resolution is
> > reasonably necessary to facilitate interoperability,
> Security
> > and/or
> > Stability of the Internet or DNS; 
> > 
> > -   (2) functional and performance specifications for the
> > provision
> > of Registry Services (as defined in Section 3.1(d)(iii)
> > below); 
> > 
> > -   (3) Security and Stability of the registry database for
> the
> > TLD;
> > 
> > 
> > -   (4) registry policies reasonably necessary to implement
> > Consensus Policies relating to registry operations or
> > registrars; 
> > 
> > -   or (5) resolution of disputes regarding the registration
> of
> > domain names (as opposed to the use of such domain names). 
> > 
> > 8. Any deviation from consensus policies should be
> explicitly
> > stated and
> > justified in the agreement
> > 
> > 
> > 9. Where a registry provides IDNs, the contract should
> require
> > that the
> > registry adhere to IDN standards, and ICANN guidelines for
> > IDNs.
> > 
> > 10. Initially rely on the appropriate external
> > competition/anti-trust
> > Government authorities to ensure compliance with laws
> relating
> > to market
> > power or pricing power.   This can be reviewed after initial
> > term.
> > 
> > 11. ICANN should take a consistent approach with respect to
> > registry
> > fees - taking into account differences in regional, economic
> > and
> > business models
> > 
> > 13. Use of Personal Data: limit it to the purpose for which
> it
> > is
> > collected, and define the extent to which it is made
> available
> > to third
> > parties.
> > 
> > 
> > Further work required to identify whether to address other
> > forms of
> > registry data, such as traffic data, before any policy
> > recommendation in
> > this area can be made.
> > 
> > 
> 
>