ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[net-rfp-general]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

GNSO Council discussion on dot Net-excerpt from draft minutes

  • To: net-rfp-general@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: GNSO Council discussion on dot Net-excerpt from draft minutes
  • From: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 18:24:08 +0200

Please find attached an excerpt from the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on May 12, 2005 where it was agreed to post the Council discussion on dot Net to the ICANN public comment forum.

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org
<!--#set var="bartitle" value="GNSO Council dot NET discussion"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="GNSO Council dot NET discussion"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="12 May 2005"-->
<!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"-->
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"-->
<!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'GNSO Council dot Net 
discussion'"-->
<p align="center"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>GNSO Council 
Teleconference<br>
</b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Dot Net discussion </b> 
<br>
    <strong>12 May 2005<br>
    <br>
    Excerpt from the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on May 12, 
2005<br>
  </strong>(Final minutes will be posted to the Council list shortly ) 
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span 
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: 
navy;"><o:p></o:p></span></font><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span 
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: 
navy;"><o:p></o:p></span></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">At
the GNSO Council teleconference held on 12 May 2005, it was agreed to post the 
Council discussion on dot Net to the<a 
href="http://www.icann.org/tlds/net-rfp/net-rfp-public-comments.htm";> ICANN 
public comment forum.<br>
</a><strong><br>
Marilyn Cade</strong> emphasized that it was a council discussion and not a 
decision, and encouraged all council members  to make comments, regardless of a 
relationship with any of the bidders, stating that when regulatory agencies 
engage in anti-trust investigations in general, at times of  mergers or 
acquisitions, they invited the opinion of affected parties including  
competitors to the companies planning to merge. <br>
<br>
In disclosure statements <strong>Ross Rader </strong>stated that Tucows had a 
contracting relationship with one of the bidders and <strong>Ken 
Stubbs</strong> stated that he was a director of Afilias, one of bidders on the 
.net re delegation.<br>
<br>
<strong>Grant Forsyth</strong>  spoke to Philip Sheppard's <a 
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/net-rfp-general/msg00054.html";>posting 
</a>to the dot net re-delegation public comments.<br>
<br>
&quot; The previous recommendation of council was that the major term of 
relative difference between  bidding parties was competition. The Telcordia 
report appears to have interpreted it as competition between registrars in the 
registrar market as opposed to competition in the registry market. It should be 
noted that there is a major disconnect between the  recommendations in 
Council's report and its implementation in the evaluation of the RFP and 
suggest  this has led to the outcome that has resulted. Note that Telcordia in 
its report states that while it was left to determine the specific  evaluation 
criteria,  the criteria that it developed was signed off by ICANN. The Business 
constituency representatives feel that because of this disconnect between the  
intent of the GNSO Council's recommendation and its interpretation in the 
evaluation of the bid, if the ICANN Board is not of a mind to revert to the 
original policy intent, then Phillip Sheppard has made useful suggestions in 
his <a 
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/net-rfp-general/msg00054.html";>posting 
</a>as to how the policy intent of competition can be remediated to a certain 
extent through suggestions that would have to be applied to the successful 
bidder. &quot; </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Ken Stubbs</strong> in an 
individual capacity, not representing the views of the registry constituency, 
commented that a significant majority of the proposals presented to ICANN 
reflected concerns consistent with <a 
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/net-rfp-general/msg00054.html";>Philip 
Sheppard's comments.</a></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Alick Wilson</strong> 
agreed with the concerns raised by <a 
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/net-rfp-general/msg00054.html";>Philip 
Sheppard </a> and took the position that ICANN should foster competition.  
Clearly the criteria that had been applied in theTelcordia report had 
discounted the competitive aspect to an unacceptable level. Philip Sheppard had 
proposed a mitigation should the Board go ahead and  re-award dot net to 
Verisign. Alick Wilson questioned whether the mitigation Philip Sheppard 
proposed was sufficient and suggested that there should be a review of the 
criteria applied against the GNSO Council report as it appeared that the 
Telecordia assessment of  did not address the issue of the weightings which 
should   themselves should be looked into. <br>
  Alick Wilson further suggested that the Council develop a resolution to the 
ICANN Board and that no action be taken on the approval until the resolution 
was received by the Board. Marilyn Cade disagreed with that recommendation, 
noting that the proper area to post concerns is to the <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/tlds/net-rfp/net-rfp-public-comments.htm";>.net 
public comment process</a>. She noted that the process of developing such a 
resolution within the Council was not practical, since many would have to 
recuse themselves from a vote. She stated that the Board needs to take a 
decision on .net more quickly, taking into account any proper transition 
impact. Therefore, she suggested that Council have an informational discussion 
and provide the information about the discussion to the public process. 
Everyone can post and that is more appropriate than a resolution.<br>
  <br>
  <em>The above is a summary of the relevant discussion at the gNSO Council 
meeting, held on May 12, 2005. The <a 
href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20050512.mp3%20";>MP3 
recording</a> is available with the verbatim text. The summary was prepared by 
the gNSO Secretariat, as requested and agreed by Council. </em><br>
  <br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font></p>
<p align="left"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">    <!--#include 
virtual="/footer.shtml"-->
</font></p>


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>