After thorough discussion, the GA has shown rough consensus
in favour to
option A, i.e. to keep the current contract.A straw poll conducted between the
15 and 20 March has given
the following results:
- 24 in favour of the current
contract (option A)
- 2 in favour of the new contract (option B)
- 1 neither
of the above
The reasons for the choice, as expressed by some participants,
are
mainly:
1) "horizontal" separation between Registrar and Registry,
foreseen
in option A, is perceived as a better deal than
"vertical" separation among TLDs,
and a better safeguard
against a monopolistic position.
2) The switchover to
option B is perceived as a change
in policy, done without previous consultation
of the DNSO
(whose mission is to provide recommandations on policy),
and
moreover within very strict deadlines, absolutely
inappropriate to evaluate in
depth the implications of
such change. For instance, some of the details of the
new proposal, like some attachments, are still unknown
at time of writing.
Also, this change in policy is considered
irreversible.
3) The financial advantages
for the Internet community
of option B are not balancing off the drawbacks above,
as it is understood that the investment will be done by
VeriSign at its discretion,
based on a commercial logic
that is perfectly legitimate but out of the control
of the Internet community.
The benefits for the Internet community are therefore
not
identifiable at this point in time, and it may be even
assumed that other
competingoperators might invest
comparable amounts of money in the infrastructure
as well,
if granted similar contracts by ICANN.
4) The other claimed advantage
of option B, i.e. a different
management of .org, is minimal in value if of any
value
at all, because years of practice of sale of names without
enforcement
of the original charter have irreversibly
altered the content of .org
Moreover,
should a charter be enforced by ICANN and/or
agreed with the .org registry (and
this regardless on
whether the registry changes owner, i.e. independently
from
option A or B being chosen), the GA is opposed to
any action to cancel existing
registrations. Any
action of this type would be contrary to the legitimate
interest
of bona-fide owners of .org names.
Roberto Gaetano
GA Chairman