RE: If PIR is violating its own advisory charter, why do they expect to have .org renewed?
Hi Vint, The way presumptive renewal is written into the proposed contracts, it's almost impossible to not renew them, even if the registries breach their contracts. This has been analyzed by NSI and GoDaddy already, in the public comments mailing lists. Others (the user "Fundraiser" at DomainState, if one followed the links) have drawn the attention of the charter violation to PIR. They don't appear to care. That's the kind of arrogance that develops in entrenched monopolies. They're not as bad as VeriSign, though, yet.... ICANN has not explained how presumptive renewal is a good thing, versus fixed term contracts. If you have a series of fixed length contracts, with open bidding, and specifications for level of service, the only variable is *PRICE* (i.e. the tender price that the prospective contractor use to bid). The only scenario that the world is worse off is if *no one* bids on a contract. That would never happen, though (there's lots of prospective registry operators out there that are willing to do the job). Given then that price is the only variable, ICANN goes beyond stupidity and then gives the registry operator unlimited pricing power! Certainly competitive tenders will always produce a dominant result to that, since competitive bidders would always agree to a price cap, and certainly competition would achieve a lower price than a monopolist would pick under an unlimited pricing power regime. If presumptive renewal is so good, why doesn't ICANN agree to let *me* be their sole-sourced electricity supplier, and allow me the ability to set my own price for service, and give me presumptive renewal? :) I'd immediately jackup the price by 1000%, and there'd be nothing you could do about it. The reason ICANN wouldn't do it in for electricity or phone service is the same reason registrants don't want it for domain name services. Indeed, as I pointed out earlier, Neustar is signing *extensions* to their telephone management contracts that don't contain presumptive renewal, and yet also are reflecting price *decreases*. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg04807.html It is perfectly consistent to have renewals of contracts with price cuts, and allow the registry operators to have enough money to invest in infrastructure, yet share the benefits of economies of scale with consumers. Certainly telephone database management is very similarly technologically to DNS database management, with similar cost structures and economies of scale. If Neustar could live without presumptive renewal there, they and others can certainly live without it in the .biz/info/org TLDs. My longer comments are at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/biz-tld-agreement/msg00907.html Sincerely, George Kirikos http://www.kirikos.com/ --- Vint Cerf <vint@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > George, > > Presumptive renewal does not preclude the possibility that an > organization > would not automatically be renewed. It would depend very much on the > nature > of the inadequacy that might induce a decision to call for bids > instead of > automatically renewing. > > I assume you've drawn attention of PIR to this anomaly in the > population of > their advisory group? > > Vint > > > > Vinton G Cerf > Chief Internet Evangelist > Google > Regus Suite 384 > 13800 Coppermine Road > Herndon, VA 20171 > > +1 703 234-1823 > +1 703-234-5822 (f) > > vint@xxxxxxxxxx > www.google.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: George Kirikos [mailto:gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 12:21 AM > To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; org-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx > Cc: john.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx; vint@xxxxxxxxxx > Subject: If PIR is violating its own advisory charter, why do they > expect to > have .org renewed? > > Hello, > > According to the .org Advisory Council Charter: > > http://www.pir.org/PDFs/pir_ac_charter.pdf > > "Section 3:... No two members of the Council will be from the same > non-commercial organization." > > Michael Mann and Angela Stuber are both from Grassroots.org: > > http://www.pir.org/AboutPIR/CouncilMembers.aspx > http://www.grassroots.org/page.ww?section=Highlights&name=Content+Detail+-+V > olunteer > http://www.grassroots.org/page.ww?section=About&name=Board+of+Directors > > Apparently, when this was brought to the attention of PIR, instead of > rectifying the issue, they "did not see a problem with it". > > http://www.domainstate.com/showthread.php3?s=&postid=327276#post327276 > > I have nothing against Grassroots.org, but perhaps ICANN and the > public > should seriously consider whether PIR, an organization that seemingly > has no > regard for their own charter, should be operating such an important > registry > as .org. Indeed, with presumptive renewal, it would be next to > impossible to > remove a registry operator. > > This is yet another reason why presumptive renewal should never exist > in any > registry agreement. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > http://www.kirikos.com/ > >