ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[At-Large Advisory Committee]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[alac] Draft comments on registry contracts

  • To: ALAC -- ALAC <alac@xxxxxxxxx>, alac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [alac] Draft comments on registry contracts
  • From: John L <johnl@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 23:32:48 -0400 (EDT)

Here's what I've spliced together from Wendy, Bret, and my notes.

Remember that the board meets on Thursday, so if we want them to have this, we need to send it to them within the next 24 hours. So if you have comments to make, please make them soon, and be concise.

R's,
John
------
At Large Advisory Committee comments on the proposed new contracts
for .ORG, .BIZ, and .INFO.

The At Large Advisory Committee views the proposed contracts with
great concern, and believes that several of the proposed changes will
have a severe negative effect on the At Large community.  We urge the
Board to make no changes to any of these contracts at this time.

1.  The .ORG contract has three years to run.  There is no need to
change it now.  The other two contracts are not in any immediate
danger of expiring, either, so the rush to revise them is baffling and
contrary to ICANN's principles of stability and transparency.

2.  We are particularly concerned that the rush to approve new
contracts gives the appearance that ICANN is attempting to subvert the
GNSO's policy development process.  Contracts that expire before the
GNSO has completed its current policy development process on registry
contractual conditions should be renewed on the same terms as in the
expiring contract, subject to revision to conform with adopted policy
recommendations.

3.  Once a user has selected a domain, that domain's registry is the
monopoly supplier of renewals.  Predictable pricing from those
monopoly suppliers is an important part of the stability of the net.
Millions of people have bought domains on the expectation of being
able to renew them at about the same price they have paid in the past.
Prepaying for 10 years is not a substitute for stability, both because
10 years is not a long time in business and personal events, and
because it forces users to buy renewals they wouldn't otherwise buy,
purely do defend against registries raising the price should a domain
become notably successful.

4.  Registries are, by all reports, profitable at the current capped
price and can and do make needed investments in infrastructure.
Indeed, the experience of the .net renewal strongly suggests that even
at $3 there would be multiple well qualified candidates to run these
three registries.

5.  The current system of fixed price caps has worked well for
registries, registrars, and most importantly for users since ICANN
began.  Removing price caps would benefit registries at the expense of
users.  If registries want to remove price caps, they need to show a
community benefit that outweighs the substantial costs imposed on
users, which they have not done.

6.  Traffic data, even that which has undergone some anonymization,
may still contain sensitive personal or competitive information.  At a
minimum, more public consultation should be held before registries are
permitted to sell or otherwise exploit that data.

7. These contracts are explicitly designed for the benefit of users of
the DNS.  Remove the "no third-party beneficiaries" language to enable
relying registrants and users to police their own interests.

8. Periodic re-bidding serves as a stronger check on bad behavior than
the weak arbitration and mediation provisions within the contract.
The presumptive perpetual renewal should be dropped.



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy