RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Table on "Background Information on ICANN gTLD Registry Agreements"

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Fabulous. This helps me. I think that what would be needed is a more
detailed analysis of what the differences are, where there is a 'yes'. 

But perhaps we could understand first, if there is a 'grouping'. For
instance,k are there categories of similarity in the presumptive renewal
column?

But first, can you help me with : .com appears three times. I am assuming
that is because 2001 is the agreement that the staff negotiated into a newer
version agreed to by the board, but then I see that isn't the case, since it
appears the (3) is the present version that was agreed to by Board and is
now with Dept. of Justice and Dept. of Commerce. Is that correct? 

If so, I think that this needs footnote to be comprehensible to the TF, let
alone the wider world of interested and enthusiastic readers. :-) 
Then, there are 5 no's and, eliminating first the three .coms and deciding
how to include them later, 8 yes's. However, of the 8 yes, only one is an
'open' tld and that is .net. Or am I misunderstanding this? 

So, of the 7 sponsored names, are there similarities in their renewal terms,
or are they each unique? If the same/or similar, is there a tie to
presumptive renewal because of the 'sponsored' category, e.g. one has to
establish a sponsoring community to be approved, etc. ? 

Was that considered in the evaluation of the applicants in any way? Would
that be in the evaluation report? 

On Consensus policies; are they all limited in the same way? I think that I
recall not, but I'm hardly an expert on this. Yet. I can see I'll become
one, given my assignment in Group Rapp'r A. :-) 

On price controls, again, there are 7 nos, and all are sponsored TLDs. The
yes's are all 'open/or unrestricted', etc. 
 
ICANN fees I must say are very dissimilar. Is there an explanation somewhere
about why different fees are required of different registries? I assume that
that there is rationale behind this, and I can even detect a pattern that
may be very reasonable to understand, but I'd prefer to read any
documentation of materials that are available. It may be that the staff
prepared analysis for the Board when recommending certain fees that can be
made available, for instance. Or it may be more random and we should just
start out by looking at the data and noting patterns and work from there.

Traffic data does confuse me. What does no provision mean? To say
permitted/but restricted, needs clarification, but no provision might mean-
not permitted or permitted. I think it might mean: simply not addressed. 

I am a little confused by the .net reference to no investment mandate. I was
under the impression that the bidder -- VeriSign -- made commitments to
investment in their bid, and also lowered the price. But my memory begs
refreshing on that front. 

But as I said, this is a very good start and helps me considerably. I do
think it could be possible to slightly improve on this with a more detailed
spread sheet that would show what the clauses are. I guess even having the
link and the location of the clause is an improvement, although I'd prefer
to have a side by side. I think this kind of tool is really routine in
analysis, but I appreciate it is additional data gathering in order to
support informed analysis. 

Thanks again, Dan. for your time and participation today. Very helpful. And
thanks to Liz. 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Daniel Halloran
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 4:59 PM
To: pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Table on "Background Information on ICANN gTLD
Registry Agreements"

Task Force Members,

As discussed on today's call, here's a link to the Issues Report for  
PDP-Feb06:  <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/issues- 
report-02feb06.pdf>

The table I mentioned appears at the end of the document, in Annex 3  
"Background Information on ICANN gTLD Registry Agreements."

For your convenience, I've prepared a document extracting just the  
table -- please see attached.

Thank you for your attention.

Best Regards,
Daniel Halloran
Deputy General Counsel
ICANN