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

[Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran@xxxxxxxxx>]

Marilyn,

Thanks for your note.  I'll be traveling the next few days and I'm  
sorry I haven't had a chance to reply to all your questions below.

I have prepared a _draft_ of the table you requested compiling all of  
the registry agreement provisions relevant to the PDP-Feb06 TOR --  
hopefully this will help clear up some of your questions.  The table  
is a little unwieldy at this stage (don't try to print it -- it's  
only really viewable through MS Excel at this point) -- I'd  
appreciate any feedback you or the other task force members could  
offer to make it more useful for you.

Best regards,
Dan

Attachment: draft-comparison-of-icann-registry-agreements-20061009.xls
Description: Binary data

On 4  Oct 2006, at 16:38, Marilyn Cade wrote:

> 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