Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Proposed Addendum to Proposals

["Phil Buckingham" <pjbuckingham@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff  & Mikey  ,

As an ex auditor and CFO for (too many ) years this is a subject that interests 
me ! Clearly , to me , the whole issue of audit, compliance, enforcement are 
very much interlinked with VI and the rollout of new gTLDs.
Ultimately , ICANN needs to put in place a regulatory body for all issues on 
gTLDs. This will need to be achieved before new gTLDs are operational , post 
delegation to the root. Lets say , by the end of 2011 . Definately achievable.

You are opening another can of worms here , albeit with  the very best of 
intentions.  Yes , if we address all issues re known & potential harms, by 
putting in place , for instance, internal and external audits for registries , 
their subsidiary , affiliated and associated  companies then this whole issue 
of cross ownership / control at 2% , 15% 82.77777%, whatever, will be much less 
significant. Then it will allow genuine applicants with a good business model , 
some "backed" & "controlled" by other existing businesses within the DNS, into 
the market place and let market forces take effect.  But how much is this going 
to cost ?
Maybe the application fee needs to be raised ...... but....... It is a chicken 
and egg situation

A polling question I would like to ask , for anybody who originally submitted a 
SOI ( irrespective of whether they have contributed or not) . For a poll to be 
meaningful, no skew tendency, then everybody SHOULD be required to vote.

is

I am assuming if no consensus is achieved amongst us -


1. Do you think,we the VI WG  should continue with our work ( crossing the t's 
and dotting the i' s, addressing every scenario  ) and advice the Board they 
that should delay their "communication tour " and subsequent opening up the 
first application round until our work is complete .  

2. What is your  date when you think all VI issues will be completed by.

3. What is your date when you would like the first application round to start ( 
if at all)

 

 

I  have outreached to ICANN about audits (etc) and will be having meetings , on 
this , at Brussels .Jeff, you (and anybody else on the list ) are more than 
welcome to join me/ us. 

Safe journey to Brussels.

regards

Phil Buckingham   


  
 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jeff Eckhaus 
  To: 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx' 
  Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 9:54 PM
  Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Proposed Addendum to Proposals


  All,

  After today's discussions with this group and reading the emails on the list, 
I have noticed a consistent concern coming from many group members, that they 
are worried about ICANN's ability to enforce any rules that are put in place. 
It is one of the main concerns opponents of the JN2 proposal have expressed 
with the issue of co-ownership. Specifically being able to police the following 
issue: "Registry Operator or its Affiliate may serve as an ICANN-Accredited 
Registrar in any top-level domain other than the TLD for which Registry 
Operator or its Affiliate serves as the Registry Operator" . 

  Those opposed to JN2 and other proposals seem to agree that cross-ownership 
is appropriate, but that ICANN will not be able to police any restrictions on 
data sharing between a registry and registrar. They believe that we cannot 
simply rely on Registrars to adhere to a signed agreement. Thus, because 
compliance will be too difficult to enforce, we must limit cross-ownership.

  While I disagree with this viewpoint, my opinion does not matter at this 
point. What does matter is assuring the people who are concerned with the 
above, attempting to bridge the gap and reach consensus. To that end, I am 
proposing an unsolicited addendum to the JN2 proposal (maybe JN3 now??) and to 
any other proposals that allow a Registry to own up to 100% of a Registrar 
(vice-versa) but not distribute the owned TLD.

  This will only apply to co-owned entities that have an ownership level above 
the 2% threshold as discussed in the DAGv4:

  ·         The Registry/Registrar must agree to an annual audit for the first 
2 years. Every 18 months for next 3 years, and every 2 years thereafter. 
(timing can be negotiated)

  ·         The audit will focus on ensuring that Registry data is not shared 
with the co-owned Registrar, co-owned Resellers, and any related Affiliates 

  o   Details of what data would need to be audited would be supplied by a 
working group/committee led by current Registries 

  ·         Stiff penalties would be levied if there is an audit failure 
(amounts TBD)

  ·         All costs of the audit would be borne by the co-owned entity

  o   The co-owned entity would pay fees into a pool, not directly to auditors. 
This avoids any thoughts of impropriety 

  ·         This audit would be in addition to the audit and compliance 
requirements already agreed to in ICANN Registry and Registrar agreements

  ·         Auditors would be independent of ICANN but would work with ICANN 
Compliance on fees and remedies 

  ·         Auditors would be rotated among assignments to avoid capture 

  This is the framework of my proposal that I believe would cover Registrant 
rights and concerns and bring comfort to those who believe there will be 
enhanced harms if there is any type of co-ownership. Most important it would 
cover the policing/enforcement issues that seems to be the roadblock to 
consensus. I welcome feedback on this idea and look forward to hearing more and 
seeing everyone in Brussels. 

   

  Regards,

   

  Jeff Eckhaus