This exchange hasn't helped us move forward. If Mike R (as the current rapporteur) could advise us on the steps he needs to develop a set of BC comments and where those comments need to go, we would make a positive step forward. Liz On 31 Jul 2009, at 22:39, Ron Andruff wrote:
Thank you for the details, George. I was looking for brevity, and hoped most would understand my shorthand.
Kind regards,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001
www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859
-----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: 2009-07-31 17:15 To: BC gnso Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Registry Registrar Separation issue
Hello,
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Ron Andruff wrote:
We support Michael Palage's statement that the BC needs to take a position on this matter, even if there are some dissenters within the constituency (which can addend a note clarifying their disagreement with the position taken). Whether members agree with George's arguments or not, what
matters
here is that ICANN staff (former CEO?) has unilaterally brought this forward. ICANN is a bottom-up, consensus-driven organization and it is on this point the BC must take a stand. Reversing such a significant decision as this one, without the BC raising our collective voice, would demonstrate what many have said about the Business Constituency, i.e., it no longer has any relevance to the ICANN process.
'Status quo' is not the argument here. It is about fundamental principles.
Let's get a call scheduled to discuss this in detail, and then take a vote on a position. A drafting team can then articulate the outcome in a BC position.
Where's the fire? We don't even have basic information as to the who, what, where, when, why, and how of why this is suddenly an "issue of importance" at this time. We saw what happened last time when the officers suddenly unilaterally declared an emergency position supposedly on behalf of the entire constituency on the IRT, in hasty fashion (there should have been a vote called, as previously discussed at length).
Our existing charter spells out a procedure (section 7) for developing written policy:
http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm
There should be a Rapporteur. There should be a draft position circulated for comment. There should be a 14 day comment period. The draft can be changed/amended. If there's more than 10% opposition of paid-up members (do we even have a current list of members posted on our website, as I've asked numerous times on this list? we've not had a contacts list updated in many months, despite membership changes in the interim), there shall be a vote.
There were multiple comment periods already on the Draft Applicant Guidebooks for new gTLDs. My company submitted comments, as did many other members of this constituency. We did it on time.
All these sloppy, rushed and ad-hoc processes do not convey a good impression of this constituency and its operation. I understand some BC members are affiliated with registrars. Other BC members are affiliated with registry operators, or are wannabe registry operators who want to get their hands on a new gTLD. Why should the rest of us (those of us that don't have these conflicts of interests) even care about your quarrel, about who picks Door #1 or Door #2, the false choice when Door #3 (i.e. competitive tenders for operation of a registry) is the clear winner to benefit consumers/registrants, and is the position of the NTIA/DOC/DOJ and would result in the lowest prices?
Folks might find Philip's statement in the GNSO Council mailing list illuminating:
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07072.html
as it discusses implicitly these conflicts of interest. Or Mike Rodenbaugh on the same topic:
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07045.html
"Obviously, those entities should find a place somewhere in the contracting party house where their interests are aligned, whether as observers or whatever, but they should not be allowed on the other side where interests are clearly different."
(i.e. in the context of wannabe registry operators being a constituency in the Commercial Stakeholders Group)
Yet, those same people (wannbe registry operators, or others with important interests as registrars) are already in the BC! Re-read the following by Philip:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00231.html
".....because of the current uncertainty of where new Constituencies for groups such as Registry Operators, Applicant City TLDs, Applicant Registries, Resellers should sit. The Contracted Parties are adamant they belong in the Commercial Stakeholders Group because all of these groups do not have an ICANN Contract. Having the ability in our Charter to argue such groups do not sit well in our SG seemed a wise precaution in this transitional stage."
If these groups "do not sit well in our SG", why should the rest of us be witness to their machinations, pretending that they are "businesses" and belong in the BC, when their true intentions are to become new gTLD operators, and thus are NOT ALIGNED with the BC?
I recall submitting detailed comments on a draft charter for this constituency, as did others. That topic suddenly disappeared from the constituency agenda, as we're "too busy" with other things. Yet when new gTLD applicants want something put on our agenda, we as a constituency suddenly "jump"? Why? There are several active public comment periods (and some that recently closed):
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/
What amount of BC discussion on those has taken place? Isn't Root Server Scaling important? Or eUDRP? Why aren't price caps an important issue, far more important than splitting the "spoils of war" between registrars and registries? Most businesses are neither registries nor registrars, they are REGISTRANTS, with clear interests aligned with consumers.
We had news months ago that ICANN is going to cover travel expenses of GNSO Council, for example, meaning that the BC budget should be lowered to remove those planned expenses. Why isn't that on the agenda, rebates to members to reflect lower expenses? We had several new registry services applications by VeriSign:
http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/
that this constituency didn't make a statement on. My company did:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/registryservice/
and now the registrar constituency sees the need for more study.
So, in conclusion, I don't see why the agenda of new gTLD applicants and the registrars are the concern of the BC at this time. They should be recusing themselves from this discussion within the BC, and following the principles of "Divisional Separation" which are mentioned in our charter:
"Applicants and members which do participate elsewhere are required to demonstrate that their BC membership will be divisionally oriented meaning that separate individuals will represent those divisions in ICANN affairs, and ********that the entity will only represent user or consumer perspectives within the Business Constituency.*******" (emphasis added)
instead of so clearly trying to sway the BC to take their side in a dispute that harms consumers either way they each wish to go. The best route forward is to ignore the concerns of both those sides, and do what's best for consumers/registrants and "normal businesses" (i.e. excluding registrars, registries and wannabes, and their respective consultants/lobbyists/attorneys).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/