[Fwd: RE: [TRYP] [Fwd: [gtld-council] Comments Chuck Gomes - BC response]]
-------- Original Message --------Subject: RE: [TRYP] [Fwd: [gtld-council] Comments Chuck Gomes - BC response]
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 10:51:44 -0500 From: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <ken@xxxxxxxxx> Ken, Would you please forward the following response to Philip's message to the Council list for the Dec05 PDP committee. Chuck Gomes VeriSign Information Services Philip, Thanks for the timely response. Please see my comments below following yours with regard to Sections 2.6 and 4.9.
-----Original Message-----From: GNSO Registry Constituency Planning [mailto:TRY-PLANNING@nic.museum] On Behalf Of Ken StubbsSent: Monday, November 06, 2006 6:30 AM To: TRY-PLANNING@nic.museumSubject: [TRYP] [Fwd: [gtld-council] Comments Chuck Gomes - BC response]-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [gtld-council] Comments Chuck Gomes - BC response Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 11:54:15 +0100 From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> To: <gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Allow me to respond for the BC on Chuck's suggestions. Philip ---------------------------------------------------"a) That new generic top level domains (gTLDs) will be introduced in anorderly, timely and predictable way." AGREED The process should be as objective and measurable as possible to minimize subjectivity. AGREED Section 22.214.171.124 "In the event that ICANN reasonably believes that the application for a particular string is not compliant with the string requirements, ICANN will notify the applicant right away and the application will be eliminated from consideration pending any reconsideration process that might apply. If ICANN is unable to make a definitive determination whether or not a string is compliant with the string requirements, then ICANN will refer the issue to a panel of experts with appropriate backgrounds." AGREED Section 2.6 says: "An applicant for a new gTLD must use ICANN accredited registrars to provide registration services to Registered Name Holders (registrants). The registry shall not act as a registrarwith respect to the TLD (consistent with the current registry-registrar structural separation requirements, for example, see clause 7.1 (b) and(c) of the .jobs registry agreement). An organization wishing tobecome a registrar for a new gTLD would need to become accredited usingICANN's existing accreditation process." Why was the second sentenceadded? When the RyC raised the problems with regard to the requirementof always using ICANN accredited registrars for small gTLDs, the argument that was used by committee members was that the registry operator could become an ICANN accredited registrar. DISAGREE with the change. Existing text should stay. Once we reach a position where there is no longer dominance in the registry sector, delighted to talk about this again.
Gomes: Dominance was never an issue and still is not because the RyC made it very clear that any changes to this requirement would only apply to small gTLDs. We never intended that the requirement should change for larger gTLDs. In fact one idea we suggested was something like a 'first right of refusal' for registrars to support small gTLDs; if registrars did not meet some sort of mutually agreed-to level of service, only then would any exception kick in. In my opinion, it is very inappropriate for the committee to have put the RyC concern aside by arguing that a registry could simply become a registrar and then to turn around and insert language that says registries cannot become registrars. Therefore, I request that this issue be revisited by the committee.
In Section 4.4, the term 'license holder' is used twice. I don't believe this term is applicable and would suggest changing it to something like 'contracted party' or 'registry/sponsor'.AGREE we need to use consistent language. We need a list of definitionsalso. Section 4.9 reads as follows: "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 an initial term." Why does this start with the word "initially" and why was the second sentence included? DISAGREE. I believe the existing wording captures the committee's discussion.There is a difference between contract enforcement (ICANN) and anti-trust authorities but ICANN does have a mission to improve competition. Leaving the door open for ICANN to takeresponsibility here is what we discussed. The mechanism for that can bediscussed in due course beyond this PDP.
Gomes: I fully understand the difference between contract enforcement and anti-trust enforcement but that doesn't resolve my concern. To me, the word "initially" implies that we will rely on "competition/anti-trust government authorities" at first, but may end that reliance later. Maybe the wording just needs to be refined. But as I said before, it sounds to me like the wording suggests that the committee is recommending that we start off by trying to use government authorities, but we could later revisit the possibility of ICANN fulfilling a competition/antitrust role. Do members of the committee actually recommend that ICANN should possibly become a competition/anti-trust regulator in the future?