[pdp-pcceg-feb06] TORs of the PDP-Feb'06 -RC

["Jeffrey Eckhaus" <jeckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Registrars Constituency responses are below 

 

 

 

 

 

TERM OF REFERENCE 1

 

ToR 1a. Registry agreement renewal

---------------------------------

Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding renewal, and

if so, what the elements of that policy should be. 

 

Policy Recommendation A:

There should be a policy guiding renewal. 

 

RC: YES

 

Policy Recommendation B: 

There should be a standard term for all gTLD registries that is a

"commercially reasonable length." 

 

RC: YES

 

Policy Recommendation C: 

There should be a reasonable expectation of renewal for all registry

agreements.  

 

OR

 

Policy Recommendation D:

There should be a renewal expectancy for all registry agreements. 

 

OR

 

Policy Recommendation E:

There should be a presumption of renewal for all registry agreements

 

RC: POLICY RECOMMENDATION D defined as a discretionary rebid with an
advantage to the incumbent

 

 

 

 

1b. Registry agreement renewal standardization

----------------------------------------------

Recognizing that not all existing registry agreements share the same

Rights of Renewal, use the findings from above to determine whether

or not these conditions should be standardized across all future

agreements. 

 

Policy Recommendation F: 

The 'right of renewal' should be standardized for all gTLD registry

agreements.

 

OR

 

Policy Recommendation G:

The 'right of renewal' should be standardized for gTLD registry

agreements except when there is an exceptional situation, such as a

situation of market dominance or market power.  

 

RC: POLICY F

 

 

TERM OF REFERENCE 2

Relationship between registry agreements and consensus policies

 

2.a

 

Policy Recommendation H: 

Consensus policies limitations are inappropriate. 

 

OR

 

Policy Recommendation I:

Consensus policies should always apply to all gTLD registries.

 

OR

 

Policy Recommendation J:

Consensus policies should always be applied to all gTLD registries.

On an individual basis, during the contract negotiation, a registry

could present a situational analysis and justification, which should

be posted for public comment before acceptance/inclusion in the

contract, for an exception/or modification from a particular

consensus policy, due to unique circumstances of how a particular

policy would affect that registry. Such an exception will not create

any prejudice for extension to any other gTLD registry. 

 

OR

 

Policy Recommendation K:

The present limitations to Consensus policies are appropriate and

should continue.

 

RC: POLICY RECOMMENDATION H + I

 

 

2b.

 

Policy Recommendation L:

 

Certain policy making responsibility should be delegated to the

sponsored gTLD operators, but variations can be made, based on

characteristics of the sponsoring community. Variations should be

discussed/disclosed in charter for public comment. Examples of policy

making responsibility to be delegated to the sponsored gTLD operators

include but may not be limited to:  

 

-      Charter and scope of 'sponsored community'

-      Eligibility to be in the 'sponsored category' 

-      Eligibility for a particular name

-      The concept of a conflicts/dispute process as a service to the

sponsored community

 

RC: YES

 

 

TERM OF REFERENCE 3

Policy for price controls for registry services

 

Policy recommendation M (option 1)

 

Option 1 

 

When a registry contract is up for renewal, there should be a

determination whether that registry is market dominant. That

determination should be made by a panel of competition experts

including competition lawyers and economists. This panel would

operate similarly to the panel that reviews the security and

stability implications of new registry services.

 

If the panel determines that there is a situation of market power,

then the registry agreement must include a pricing provision for new

registrations, as currently is included in all of the largest gTLD

registry agreements. If the panel determines that there isn't market

power, then there would be no need for a pricing provision related to

new registrations, as is the practice in the recent round of sTLD

registry agreements. 

 

Regardless of whether there is market dominance, consumers should be

protected with regard to renewals due to the high switching costs

associated with domain names. Therefore, this policy recommendation

is to continue the system of pricing provisions in the current

unsponsored TLD agreements with regard to domain name renewals. 

 

The price for new registrations and renewals for market dominant

registries and for renewals for non-market dominant registries should

be set at the time of the renewal of the registry agreement. Such a

price should act as a ceiling and should not prohibit or discourage

registries from providing promotions or market incentives to sell

more names. In agreeing on such a price ceiling, ICANN should

consider the domain name market, the price of names in the prior

agreement, the market price in cases of competition through rebids,

and the specific business plans of the registry. 

 

The pricing provision should include the ability for an increase if

there is cost justification for such an increase, as is required in

the current registry agreements with pricing provisions. Such

increases should be evaluated and approved by a third party entity,

such as an accounting or financial analyst firm.

 

Differential pricing between domain names should be prohibited

whenever there is a set price/price cap and should be permitted when

there isn't such a price constraint. In other words, non-dominant

registries may differentially price for new registrations, but not

for renewals. Dominant registries may not differentially price for

new registrations or renewals.

 

Finally, as is the current practice, all registries should provide

equitable pricing opportunities for all registrars and at least six

months notice before any price increase. 

 

Policy Recommendation N (Option 2):

 

The NCUC has argued that it is premature to formulate policy in the

area of pricing without having had the benefit of an intensely

focused study on this topic. They believe that a new PDP is required

to address the specific issue of price controls. ("We believe that

existing price caps should be left in place for the short term, and

another, separate PDP inaugurated on methods and criteria for

changing, raising or eliminating price caps in the future.")

 

Thus, another option is to keep the status by encouraging ICANN to

continue with existing pricing provisions and initiating a targeted

PDP on this issue alone taking into account the upcoming economist's

report (http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-18oct06.htm). 

 

 

RC: YES THERE SHOULD BE A POLICY, RECOMMENDATION M OPTION 1

 

 

TERM OF REFERENCE 4

ICANN fees

 

4a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding registry

fees to ICANN, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be.

 

 

Policy Recommendation O: 

In order to improve ICANN accountability and effective business

planning by registries, ICANN staff should immediately implement a

system of ICANN fees from registries that avoids individual

negotiations of ICANN fees and provides consistency unless there is

established justification for disparate treatment. 

 

RC: YES

 

4b. Determine how ICANN's public budgeting process should relate to

the negotiation of ICANN fees. 

 

Policy Recommendation P: 

The ICANN Board should establish a Task Force or Advisory Committee

to examine budgeting issues, including the manner and allocation of

revenue collection, budget oversight, and budget approval processes.

This group should solicit and review public comments on the issues.

 

RC: YES

 

TERM OF REFERENCE 5

Uses of registry data

 

5a Examine whether or not there should be a policy regarding the use

of registry data for purposes other than for which it was collected,

and if so, what the elements of that policy should be. 

 

Policy Recommendation Q: 

There should be a policy regarding the use of registry data [which

includes traffic data] for purposes other than that for which it was

collected. 

 

RC: YES

 

5b. Determine whether any policy is necessary to ensure

non-discriminatory access to registry data that is made available to

third parties. 

 

Policy Recommendation R: 

There should be a policy to ensure non-discriminatory access to

registry data that is made available, but that policy should include

safeguards on protection against misuse of the data. 

 

Agreed by all the TF members that further work is needed at the Task

Force level. 

 

RC: WORK NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED

 

 

TERM OF REFERENCE 6

Investment in development and infrastructure

 

6a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding

investments in development and infrastructure, and if so, what the

elements of that policy should be.  

 

Policy Recommendation S: 

There should not be a policy guiding investments in development and

infrastructure. ICANN should, however, establish baseline

requirements for the security and stability of the registries and

anything above that would be negotiated on a case-by-case basis, if

necessary. Such a baseline requirements should be recommended to the

Board by the Security and Stability Advisory Committee ("SSAC") after

consultation with the gTLD registry operators. In determining these

recommendations, the SSAC also should solicit and consider public

comments.

 

Notes: Revised text developed by Jeff Neuman and Jon Nevett

 

RC: YES