GNSO Council discussion on dot Net-excerpt from draft minutes
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>
" 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. " </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>
|