This addresses many concerns raised with previous proposal
- To: <revised-settlement@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: This addresses many concerns raised with previous proposal
- From: "Steve DelBianco, Executive Director" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 08:20:29 -0500
The revised settlement agreement and contract go a long way toward addressing
concerns the Business Constituency found in the initial proposal. At the
Vancouver meeting and in their Dec-2005 comments, the BC raised pertinent
questions about the proposed settlement?s impact on process and precedent.
ICANN staff should be commended for listening to the BC in coming up with a
revised settlement agreement.
One of the BC?s recommendations for revising the settlement agreement regarded
traffic data. The BC was concerned that Verisign could use, and potentially
abuse, traffic data regarding domain names or non-existent domain names. The
revised agreement addresses any concern that Verisign would have a monopoly
over traffic data, since it mandates non-discriminatory access to such data
when it is made available.
In addition, the BC wanted certain process controls for how new registry
services would be allowed under the contract. The revised settlement agreement
is partly responsive in that it reduces the exemption period, but does not
eliminate it. More important, ICANN says it will be renegotiating other
registry agreements to be consistent with the VeriSign contract, which should
satisfy the BC?s desire for a level playing field among registry operators.
The BC also asked the ICANN Board to confirm that spending decisions for funds
provided through the contract would allow constituency input via strategic
planning and budget processes. While it?s understandable that constituencies
want to retain their role in spending decisions, this is an ICANN budgeting
matter that has no place in a contract with the registry operator.
Finally, the BC wanted additional oversight language for transition of the root
server management. ICANN responded by modifying the Transition Agreement to
clarify the role of the Internet Architecture Board.
Business Constituency leaders should be pleased that many of their concerns
were addressed in the renegotiated settlement and contract. I?m looking forward
to seeing official BC reaction to the new proposal.
Executive Director, NetChoice
Sent via the WebMail system at netchoice.org