Summary and Analysis of Public Comments

[Craig Schwartz <craig.schwartz@xxxxxxxxx>]

Summary and analysis of public comments for:
Proposed .PRO Renewal Registry Agreement

7 April 2010

BACKGROUND

The public comment period was created to solicit feedback from the Internet 
community on the proposed .PRO Renewal Registry Agreement. Registry Services 
Corporation (dba RegistryPro) has been operating the TLD since 2004 after 
acquiring it from RegistryPro, Inc.

.PRO, a restricted/unsponsored TLD like .BIZ and .NAME, was introduced as part 
of the 2000 proof-of-concept round of new gTLDs. The proposed renewal agreement 
is substantially the same as what was previously approved for .BIZ in 2006 and 
.NAME in 2007.

The announcement that commenced the public comment period on 7 March 2010 (see 
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-09mar10-en.htm) highlighted 
two elements that vary between the current and proposed agreements. Please 
refer to the announcement for the explanation of the variances.

SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS

The public comment period was open from 9 March through 7 April 2010, and 
during this time four comments were received. Of the four comments, one was 
unsupportive (GK), one appeared to be supportive (MN) and two (AK and SM) were 
inconclusive regarding support. The public comments for this forum are archived 
at http://forum.icann.org/lists/pro-renewal-2010/.

The comments below are listed in the order they were received.


Adrian Kinderis: It is unclear from Mr. Kinderis' comments whether he supports 
or opposes the proposed agreement. His comments consisted of a number of 
questions including inquiring about the name of who prepared the notification 
and whether it came from ICANN's or RegistryPro's perspective. He further 
asserted that the notification created bias to the issues being discussed. Mr. 
Kinderis stated, "Hostway, the new owner of RegistryPro, knew what they were 
purchasing when they bought the business and associated contracts. They knew 
the contract they had inherited. Why is it permissible to have these clauses 
changed based on their inability to deliver a desirable result?"

Mr. Kinderis commented that .PRO "was originally a sponsored and closed 
namespace that has already been diluted considerable." His closing remark was 
that "ICANN should be careful that is not creating a precedent that future 
registry operators may call upon."



George Kirikos (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.): Mr. Kirkos opposes the 
renewal agreement and commented that, "This is a classic example of a 
prospective TLD operator promising one thing, failing at what they promised, 
and then seeking to redo their contracts. ICANN has allowed this to happen for 
years, and the time for this to cease is now." Mr. Kirikos' position is the 
Board should reject the new contract and put out an open tender or Request for 
Proposal to re-delegate .PRO. The current registry operator could respond to 
the tender/RFP, but would not receive preference in the process. Mr. Kirikos 
advocates using a procurement process that would ensure the TLD would be 
awarded to the operator that most benefits consumers/registrars at the lowest 
cost. He agreed with the comments of Adrian Kinderis in that "the registry 
operator knew what they were getting into when they signed their agreements. 
Why is it permissible to have these clauses changed based on their inability to 
deliver a desirable result?" He remarked that ICANN will not be serving the 
public interest if it does not tender/RFP .PRO.



Michele Neylon (Blacknight Solutions): Mr. Neylon appears to support the 
renewal agreement. He supports removal of the digital certificate requirement. 
Further, he commented that the proposed language to address cross-ownership 
"appears to have been dealt with in a reasonably graceful manner and should not 
be an obstacle to the renewal of the contract." He expressed disappointment 
that registration criteria were not "opened up" more to make it easier for 
non-US individuals and entities to registry a .PRO domain.



Steve Metalitz: Mr. Metalitz raised a number of questions about the Whois 
output identified in Appendix 5 and questioned the justification for the 
reference to the Whois output in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. In the 
current .PRO Whois requirement, "Right to Use" information is provided and Mr. 
Metalitz noted this was absent in the proposed Appendix 5 and questioned 
whether this will continue to be provided given the registration requirements 
cited in Appendix 11. Lastly, it was noted that all the documents associated 
with the renewal should be proof-read in order to clear up inaccurate 
cross-references.







 CONCLUSION



This summary should not be considered a full and complete recitation of every 
comment, concern, or recommendation contained in the public comments.  It is an 
attempt to capture in broad terms the nature and scope of the comments.  In 
several instances substantial written comments were submitted to elaborate on 
and support the positions presented.  This summary has been prepared in an 
effort to highlight key elements of these submissions in an abbreviated format, 
not to replace them.  Every effort has been made to avoid mischaracterizations 
and to present fairly the views provided.  Any failure to do so is 
unintentional. The comments, in their entirety, can be viewed at 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/pro-renewal-2010/.




NEXT STEPS

This summary of public comments will be used to make necessary and appropriate 
changes to the proposed Agreement and/or Appendices, and to inform ICANN's 
Board in their consideration of the .PRO Renewal Registry Agreement on 22 April 
2010.





CONTRIBUTORS are in order of first appearance (with abbreviation) and number of 
postings if more than one:

Adrian Kinderis, (AK)
George Kirikos (GK)
Michele Neylon (ML), Blacknight Solutions
Steve Metalitz (SM)

_______________________________________
Craig Schwartz
Chief gTLD Registry Liaison
ICANN