[Fwd: RE: [TRYP] [Fwd: [gtld-council] Comments Chuck Gomes - BC response]]

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-------- 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 Stubbs
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 6:30 AM
> To: TRY-PLANNING@nic.museum
> Subject: [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 an
> orderly, timely and predictable way."
> AGREED
>
> The process should be as objective and measurable as possible to
> minimize subjectivity.
>
> AGREED
>
> Section 2.5.1.3  "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 registrar
> with 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 to
> become a registrar for a new gTLD would need to become 
> accredited using
> ICANN's existing accreditation process."  Why was the second sentence
> added?  When the RyC raised the problems with regard to the 
> requirement
> of 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 
> definitions
> also.
>
> 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 take
> responsibility here is what we discussed. The mechanism for 
> that can be
> discussed 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?

>