Letter from BC opposing approval of registry agreements until consideration of independent study and GNSO policy input

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 8:39 AM
> To: Paul Twomey; Vint Cerf; sharil@xxxxxxxxxx; jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: bclist@xxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Letter from BC opposing approval of registry agreements  
> until consideration of independent study and GNSO policy input
>
>
>
>
>
> November 20, 2006
>
>
>
> Dear Board Members and Mr. Twomey
>
>
>
> The Business Constituency opposes a Board decision on  
> the .biz; .info; .org registry agreements at the upcoming meeting  
> of the Board, November 22, 2006. We ask the Board to accept the  
> recommendation of the GNSO Council of 28 September 2006, as  
> described below, and further, to await and consider the expert  
> advice that will be the output of the âindependent study by a  
> reputable economic consulting firm or organization to deliver  
> findings on economic questions ââ called for in the Boardâs 18  
> October 2006 resolution.
>
>
>
> We remind the Board and the staff of the GNSO Councilâs  
> resolution, available on the GNSO website at http:// 
> www.gnso.icann.org/resolutions, where the GNSO council requested  
> the Board to delay any decision on these contracts until the ICANN  
> board meeting after the Sao Paolo ICANN meeting 2006, and to take  
> into account the current outcome of the PDPFeb06 task force at that  
> time.
>
>
>
> On 18 October 2006 the Board meeting passed resolution http:// 
> www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-1Oct06.htm entitled Economic  
> Study of the Proposed Registry Agreements. In that resolution, the  
> Board noted that it has carefully considered the proposed new  
> agreements [with the three registries], and the public comments and  
> the registry responses, and found that the approval of the new  
> agreements would be beneficial for ICANN and the Internet  
> community, provided that the registry operators and ICANN are able  
> to agree to appropriate revisions to the proposed agreements to  
> address competition related issues, such as differential pricing.
>
>
>
> However, of significance to our recommendation to the Board, the  
> resolution acknowledged the need for high levels of economic  
> expertise. And the resolution then âdirected the President to  
> commission an independent study by a reputable economic consulting  
> firm or organization to deliver findings on economic questions  
> relating to the domain registration market, and went on to identify  
> important issues, that to the Business Constituencyâs members are  
> essential to address in an open and transparent manner.
>
>
>
> It is important to ensure this level of accountability and  
> transparency related to the independent studyâs findings, so that  
> ICANNâs community of stakeholders can fully support the decisions  
> that are made by the Board, based on recommendations of the ICANN  
> staff, but guided by the expert advice/economic expertise.
>
>
>
> We are in agreement that these are complex issues; therefore, we  
> have taken the time to examine where there are other pressures that  
> may be influencing the rush to approve these agreements. We address  
> below our concern that budget considerations may be influencing a  
> rushed decision. We believe that the Board can be of assistance in  
> the discussions with the Registrars, and thus remove or ameliorate  
> that pressure.
>
>
>
> Instead of voting, we urge the Board to discuss with the President  
> and ICANN staff the progress they have made in identifying  
> independent expert advice; if the Staff and President are unable to  
> pursue the study authorization as directed in the Board resolution  
> immediately, the Board could also task the President and staff to  
> immediately establish a interim panel of three experts in  
> competition, anti-trust, and market analysis to provide interim  
> consultation to the GNSO Council and Task Force, and of course, as  
> a resource to the staff and Board.
>
>
>
> This will support the policy development process while allowing the  
> ICANN President and staff to focus on organizing the authorized study.
>
>
>
> Further, given that the ICANN staff have not asked the Registrars  
> to approve the budget and that this creates a financial tension, we  
> urge the Board at the Sao Paolo meeting, to provide guidance and  
> support to the staff, including providing active listening and  
> pragmatic support to the discussions with the Registrars regarding  
> how to advance their approval of the ICANN budget.
>
>
>
> Conclusion: The Board should not vote on these contracts at this  
> time, but the Board has a critical role to play in advancing toward  
> a time when it is both appropriate and supportable to vote on  
> agreements with these registries.
>
>
>
> We, like the ICANN Board, seek a solution that can be broadly  
> supportable by ICANN, the stakeholders; the Board, the registries  
> and the registrars, and all other stakeholder representatives. We  
> do believe that this is attainable.
>
>
>
> For instance, if the expert advice indicates that there are no  
> competition problems and that there are sufficient safeguards, our  
> constituency will be more informed about why we should support the  
> approval of the registry agreements. In our view, there must be an  
> appropriate balance of respecting the ICANN stakeholdersâ concerns  
> and interests, with a predictable and accountable contracting  
> environment in renewals of registry agreements.
>
>
>
> Financial security is one element of a stable and predictable  
> environment for ICANN and its stakeholders. Trust and respect for  
> decisions and for the processes that lead to decisions are also key  
> elements.
>
>
>
> It is after all, our members and the millions of other businesses  
> who build the Internet, create the applications and content, and  
> provide services and products to the just over one billion Internet  
> users. We fully appreciate and value the role that registry  
> operations play in the functioning of the Internet Domain Name  
> System. However, registries are suppliers, and ICANN registry  
> agreements, and ICANNâs actions must reflect the balance of  
> supplier interests with the broader responsibilities that ICANN has.
>
>
>
> The Officers of the Commercial and Business Constituency (BC)
>
>
>
> Marilyn Cade                     Alistair  
> Dixon                       Philip Sheppard
>
>
>
> Cc: Vint Cerf, Chair, and ICANN Board
>
>      Paul Twomey, ICANN President and CEO
>
>      John Jeffrey, ICANN General Counsel
>
>      ICANN GNSO Council
>
>      ICANN GAC Chair
>
>      ICANN Commercial and Business User Constituency
>
>  ï

Attachment: BC
Description: MS-Word document