Re: [alac] Draft comments on registry contracts
Slightly updated edition, with additions from Vittorio and a line from Wendy that I missed last time. I didn't add the hidden shareholder stuff even though it is quite true, because I think that board members are more likely to read a shorter document. Remember, it has to go out today to be available in time for tomorrow's meeting. 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. The domain name provides, by design, a unique opportunity to establish a stable identifier online. 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 to 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. Compliance of such provisions with existing privacy laws in all the countries where domains are registered must be assessed. 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.
|