Input from the ccTLD
members on the ICANN-VeriSign contract.This document is in TWO parts:
1. PART
ONE
Text included in the NC resolution posted to the ICANN Board
http://www.icann.org/melbourne/dnso-input-verisign-revisions-28mar01.
htm
2.
Part TWO
Personnal comments from the ccTLD Names Council Representatives,
Peter
de Blanc, Oscar Robles Garay, Elisabeth Porteneuve
Kind regards,
Elisabeth Porteneuve
==================================================================
1.
PART ONE
==================================================================
Introduction
------------
The
ccTLD group needs much more time that other Constituencies
to consider ICANN issues,
for two main reasons reasons:
first because a lot of people consider ICANN is
not about ccTLD,
second because the group is international by nature,
and communicating
very slowly.
However taking into account an extremely short time, the ccTLD
Council
representatives decided to convey individual ccTLD members
comments in absence
of Constituency consensus.
The summary of ccTLD members input is provided below.
The ccTLD
NC representative's comments are attached.
Assumptions on ICANN -
VeriSign agreement:
-----------------------------------------
The ccTLD Constituency
members have been taking into account the
following "border conditions":
1.
The current ICANN -VeriSign agreement (option "A") originated
between
the US Department of Commerce and Network Solutions Inc.,
and after
several revisions has been adopted by the ICANN Board
on 4 November
1999. This agreement follows a timeline, agreed
upon by the DoC and
the NSI, with several actions concerning
.com, .org and . net registry/registrar
activities.
The next date is 10th May 2001 - under a 1999 agreement
the
VeriSign is obliged to divest the assets and operations of
either the NSI Registrar or the Registry. VeriSign announced
its
intention to divest itself of the assets and operations
of the NSI
Registrar and to continue to operate the Registries
for .com, .net,
and .org through at least 2007.
2. This ICANN - VeriSign agreement as such is
subject to the US law,
and is between two private sector companies,
which committed
to accept it. All re-negotiations are possible, but
subject
to agreement of both parties.
a. Since December
2000, the ICANN staff have been approached
by VeriSign to
revisit the current agreement.
b. ICANN staff has been taking into
account the fact that
agreements for new gTLD, following
selection in November 2000,
differ from the one for . com,
.org and .net.
c. A revised contract, option "B, has been drafted
and reviewed
between ICANN staff and VeriSign, and published
on 1st March
2001.
d. ICANN staff presented
a comparative study of advantages and
drawbacks of both options,
"A" and "B", in Melbourne,
mid-March 2001.
e. Both VeriSign and ICANN staff have been publicly stating
that the proposed option "B" is not subject to negotiation
prior to 10 May deadline.
3. Several international rules apply to private sector
agreements,
such as open competition and deregulation of monopolies.
At this stage, various governmental agencies are concerned
(such
as the US Department of Commerce or the Directorate
General 4 of
European Commission).
Results of 5 days e-mail consultation within ccTLD Constituency
---------------------------------------------------------------
The
ccTLD Constituency has been provided notes from its NC
representatives and was
requested to comment and to choose
between option "A" and option "B".
The outcome
of five days formal e-mail consultation, over which
an additional group of 15
ccTLD (besides 3 NC reps) provided input,
is:
1. Four (4) members are in favour
of "A", one explicitly supports
"A" to have "B" renegotiated.
2.
Five (5) members are in favour of "B".
3. Six (6) members commented on ballot,
stating option "B" is
less harmful than "A", but both keep VeriSign
in the same
monopoly position as usual. The ccTLD members request
to warn
ICANN Board that the community do not have enough time to
comment.
The ccTLD members are concerned by agreements signed between
ICANN and VeriSign (or others), because it might influence,
directly
or indirectly, on ccTLD as well (for example ICANN
budget impacts
on ccTLDs).
4. Initially three (3) members stated they do not care,
afterwards two of them echoed the warning message which
ccTLD shall
sent to the ICANN Board.
==================================================================
END PART ONE
==================================================================
2.
PART TWO
==================================================================
About
ccTLD NC work on ICANN-Verisign contract
----------------------------------------------
All
the ccTLD NC reps had an opportunity to discuss over a telecon
held Friday 23th
March, at 23:00 Paris time, with Joe Sims
and VeriSign staff, and are grateful
for this opportunity.
We have been following as well various debates on the DNSO
GA lists.
Subsequently we prepared our note, which at that stage is only
a
personal note, and submitted it to ccTLD colleagues.
Whatever result we get, we
will inform you.
Report and recommendations to the ccTLD from Peter de Blanc
-----------------------------------------------------------
On
Friday, 23 March, 2001 VeriSign representatives Roger Cochetti
and Miriam Sapiro
and Counselor Joe Sims provided a Question and
Answer opportunity to invited ccTLD
leadership. Invitations were
sent to AdCom and ccTLD Names Council members.
Unfortunately,
the limited advance notice of this opportunity meant
that many persons could not
participate.
Since the 3 NC reps were available, we went on with the call.
The
following notes are personal, not consensus-based, and certainly
do not suggest
that any other member of the ccTLD constituency may
support or diminish any positions.
1.
VSGN spent 10 minutes or so "selling" the "advantages" of option
"B"; modified contract.
2. We got into the Q&A, and some statements expressed by
me,
personally.
3. My premise here is that the entire issue of
"Option A, status
quo" or "Option B, revised agreement" is something
that mostly
concerns registrars and big business, mostly in the US
mainland.
4. WRT competition and market share, either option could result in
the same net effect. For example, if status quo is elected,
and VSGN
divests itself of one division, and that division goes
to a new company,
VSGN could simply buy the new company. They
certainly have enough
money to do so. That would have the same
effect as the new contract.
5.
WRT to the possibility of changing the terms of the deal in
"option
B", there will not be a re-opening of the negotiations
prior to the
April 1, 2001 deadline. So it really IS "A" or "B"
the way the agreements
are written.
6. WRT to the US $ 200 million "investment"; this is meaningless.
VRSN will invest whatever is necessary to provide the service
level
required to handle the new business (and existing business)
that
it has. The number probably will be more than US $ 200
million, regardless
of which way the deal goes.
7. WRT direct impact on ccTLD, there is ONE SINGLE
POINT that,
from a strictly financial perspective is GOOD for ccTLD
in
the "option B"
The CAPs (maximum contribution payment
to ICANN budget) are
removed. The current agreement has registry
paying US $ 250,000
and Registrar US $ 2 million maximum.
As the ICANN budget increases, and the number of .COM names
increases,
under the present arrangement ccTLDs would pay more
each year, and
VRSN would pay less per domain name each year.
Under "option B, the
new deal" the CAPs are taken off, and
VRSN pays a proportional share
as the other registrars do,
including the new gTLDs.
8. Therefore
I recommend "option B, the new deal"
As far as maintaining or increasing competition,
and discouraging
VRSN from taking over any more of the world of Domains, I would
lobby
to institute, on an ICANN policy level, and outside of
the VRSN contract, some
of the ideas Michael Schneider has
expressed in his (personal) postings. I copy
them here...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
a) Registries themselves may not also be registrars, unless they
> split off the
registrar business as an independent entity. The
> registry shall not be allowed
to re-insource the registrar
> business de facto by performing essential technical
and
> administrative functions for the registrar on a contractual basis.
>
>
b) If the share of registrations for which a registry is
> responsible (because
it is administering a very important TLD
> or a number of smaller ones) reaches
or exceeds 20% of the
> registrations calculated for either all gTLDs or all ccTLDs,
>
the registry may not hold an interest of 50% or more or
> otherwise exercise management
control of any registrar.
>
> c) Registrars shall not be entitled to hold an
interest of 50%
> or more in registry operators or otherwise exercise management
>
control of these if
>
> aa) the registry operator administers more than 2,500,000
SLDs or
> bb) the registrar has a market share of more than 50% in one TLD,
>
or more than 25% of all gTLDs, or more than 12.5% in all ccTLDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To
summarize, this time around, I support "option B, the new deal"
as better for
ccTLDs, for the reasons listed in # 7, above,
and I support adoption of new ICANN
policy guidelines as per
Michael's a),b),c) above.
Peter de Blanc
Additionnal
comments from Elisabeth Porteneuve
----------------------------------------------
Personnal
request for ICANN policy action:
I am concerned about currently being
established NSI/VeriSign
market-dominating positions, which will
have impact on the whole
landscape of ccTLDs. The text from Michael
Schneider quoted above
is EXCELLENT, very well written.
Schneider comments on the deregulation of monopolies as
an issue
at planetary political level.
My language on the call (to Joe Sims)
was very simple:
Since several months he NSI/VeriSign (other
registrars as well)
are travelling all over the ccTLD, marketing
them,
selling/giving their softs and knowledge to operate
cc
Registries.
On one side we have
efforts to diminish their power in gTLDs,
but on the second
side many ccTLDs may move into NSI hands.
NSI/VeriSign may
give away Dot org, plan "B". No matter which
option, plan
"A" or plan "B", the NSI/VeriSign moves towards
ccTLD.
How to prevent NOW they may run hundred of ccTLD ? Is it ICANN
policy concern ? Shall it be now ?
I support Peter's personnal conclusion:
To summarize, this time around, I support "option B, the new deal"
as better
for ccTLDs, for the reasons listed in # 7, above,
and I support adoption
of new ICANN policy guidelines as per
Michael's a),b),c) above.
Elisabeth
Porteneuve
Additionnal comments from Oscar A. Robles Garay
-----------------------------------------------
I
support most of the Peter's comments, although we should
express our concerns
about the process.
Also, I am interested in being more general, in one aspect
that
Peter mentioned, which is the CAPs issue. I would
propose that any TLD (it doesn't
matter it is a gtld o cctld)
should NOT be allowed to set them (CAPs) because
it means
the rich ones would pay less and the poor ones more.
Another, speaking
about this sort of generalization,
I recommend that ICANN refrain to negotiate
agreements
with single Registries. If we want a fair Internet,
and promote
competition, the way should be same conditions
to every gTLD registry when it
comes to policies.
So, if we just have two choices (A or B) I'd choose B,
but
it doesn't means it is the best solution, neither
it means I fully support the
way ICANN staff is
conducting this negotiations with a single Registry.
Oscar
Annex:
Current situation within ccTLD (notes from Melbourne)
------------------------------------------------------------
1.
The ICANN issues are extremely difficult, the contact with ccTLD
managers means speaking and writing in various languages.
The ccTLD
WG on language diversity reports how essential it is.
There is no
open competition to which ICANN is committed without
taking into
account language diversity.
2. The summary of difficulties to communicate with
240+ ccTLD
managers:
* only 98 answered ICANN call
for funding
* only 95 ever sent an email to ccTLD mailing lists
* at most 70 were represented over a physical meeting in Geneva
* only 88 run whois database (from Geneva presentation on uwhois)
* 25% of IANA records are inaccurate (i.e. 60+ ccTLD)
It means
that the minimal active contact was established with
only 40 percent
of ccTLD Managers.
3. The USG extension to ICANN project for one year, specificaly
targeted on ccTLD agreements may be summarized by
"242 countries
in 242 days", it is unrealistic
4. To sign an agreement it is necessary to ICANN
to meet all
ccTLD managers, to know who they are, how registry is
working,
to establish physical contract.
==================================================================
END PART TWO
==================================================================