Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Current Draft Report JAS WG, version 2.8 - including August 27 reviews

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tijani, Karla,

I wrote, originally to Olof Nordling, on this issue, however, he's got 
new responsibilities and directed me to Karla. I'd like a few minutes 
to go over this with Karla via voca, prior to the next call, if she 
has the time. My original note is below, and is mostly about the 
continuity issue.
Eric

On 8/13/10 9:55 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> Hello Olof,
>
> Some questions that have been raised in the SOAC list and I hope that
> you can help me understand what can be improved. Here, "qualified
> applicants" means those applicants who are qualified for assistance by
> the SOAC, which is as yet not fully defined.
>
> First, IPv6 is no longer in Module 5 in the 4th version of the DAG as
> a requirement, e.g., in 5.2.2, Test Elements: DNS Infrastructure, but
> it is still described as mandatory elsewhere.
>
> To know whether or not IPv6 is mandatory, and therefore a proper area
> for technical assistance to qualified applicants, would be very
> helpful to clarify.
>
> My own views on the matter in public comments are here:
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-base/msg00007.html
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/2gtld-transition/msg00020.html
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-transition/msg00020.html
>
> Second, on the Continuity Instrument. There is, as Danny Younger has
> pointed out, a timeline for registry failover which is measured in
> months, while the timeline for continuity is measured in years.
>
> Further, the operating cost of continuity is implicitly exaggerated by
> the two forms of the instrument: an irrevocable standby letter of
> credit or an irrevocable cash escrow account, without reference to the
> estimated annual operating cost of continuity operations for qualified
> applicants.
>
> The central question I hope to clarify is what is the purpose of the
> continuity operation?
>
> If it is so that registrants have sufficient time to "rebrand" in some
> other TLD, is this even sensible for community-based registries?
>
> If we understand "continuity" to mean the substitution of one
> technical services provider for another, through the use of escrow
> data, resulting in a cessation of payments of operating expenses, for
> staff, equipment, connectivity, power and cooling, and office space,
> at one location of operations and the initiation of payments at
> another location of operations, consistent with "registry failover",
> then the control by ICANN of the instrument (either form) is sensible.
>
> If we understand "continuity" to mean the continued operation of the
> registry using reserves to augment current income, then the control by
> ICANN of the instrument, as well as the first form of the instrument,
> in USD denominated rather than the local currency, is perplexing.
>
> Is the purpose of "continuity" to hard-fail a registry operation and
> transparently to the registrants and nearly transparently to the
> registrars, continue operations elsewhere, breaking employment
> contracts, leasing agreements, and other long-term operating commitments?
>
> If so, then ICANN's control over the selection of where and how the
> continuity is to be conducted must, if executed competently, achieve
> significant cost reductions by co-locating several registries "in
> continuity" at a single "continuity services provider", consistent
> with the incremental cost to any current registry services provider
> for incremental additions of registry operator tenants.
>
> If the purpose of "continuity" is not to hard-fail a registry
> operation, but ensure adequate reserves for periods where revenue
> projections are not met, then the first form of the continuity
> instrument imposes currency conversion costs, and the control over the
> reserve by ICANN an unnecessary prior approval requirement for the
> registry attempting to meet momentary contingency, or longer, cash
> flow requirements.
>
> It is likely that some, perhaps all, of the SOAC qualified applicants
> will be located outside of the USD/Euro zone. If the purpose of
> "continuity" is hard failover to a designated continuity operator,
> then the continuity instrument itself is an unconditional transfer of
> reserve working capital from outside the USD/Euro zone, to businesses
> likely to be located within the USD/Euro zone.
>
> Knowing the purpose of "continuity" will inform the SOAC's exploration
> of whether, and how, this particular cost can be better quantified,
> and assistance provided to qualified applicants.
>
> Finally, as I pointed out in public comments, the actual cost of
> continuity is sufficiently small that where a registry service
> provider is providing registry services to several registry operators,
> the cost of itemizing continuity costs may be greater than the cost of
> continuity.
>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-base/msg00007.html
>
> Thank you for your time Olof, and should you want to chat to clarify
> any of my usually opaque writings, please let me know. Chatting with
> you is always a pleasure.
>
> Eric