[To: council@gnso.icann.org] Please find a text version of Constituency comments on the: Staff Manager's Issue Report on the Need for a Predictable Procedure for Changes in the Operation of TLD Registries http://www.icann.org/gnso/issue-reports/registry-svcs-report-19nov03.htm Message from ALAC to ICANN 7 November 2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 21:15:36 +0100 From: Thomas Roessler To: Barbara Roseman Cc: Vittorio Bertola Subject: New registry services / constituency statements Individual Internet users can be affected by the introduction of new registry services in several roles: As registrants, they are affected by services that change the registration system, and by services that might affect their ability to reach an intended audience online. As "DNS consumers", they are affected by changes to DNS behavior. Individual Internet users are also affected by indirect effects that the introduction of new registry services (or, likewise, a failure to introduce such services) might have: A registry service not introduced might be a valuable offer that is not available to Internet users. A registry not able to operate in a commercially viable manner may damage its registrants. A TLD market that is commercially attractive for new operators will give Internet users more choice in the long term, and will enable competition. A registry service that moves choice from the network's edges to its center, though, means less choice for users, and will replace competition at the network's edges to its center, though, means less choice for users, and will replace competition at the network's edges by a monopoly at the center. A change to DNS behavior that specifically targets a single application-level protocol may improve user experience in the short term, but will harm innovation in the long term. These examples demonstrate that there is no simple and universal way to answer the question whether some specific new registry services should be introduced, by whom, and how. In very general terms, we would argue that the introduction of new registry services should be permitted unless publicly detrimental. As far as the implementation of this general principle is concerned, we limit our comments at this point to some preliminary and basic observations: Any decision about the introduction of new registry services should be based on well-defined, objective criteria that must be applied in an even-handed manner. This should not prevent ICANN (or whatever entity is chartered with evaluating proposed registry services) from taking possible market dominance of the party that proposes a registry service into account. When a new registry service is both deliverable at the network's edges and at its core, then preference should -- in general -- be given to delivering this service at the network's edges, in order to foster user choice and competition. (See issue 6.6 from the staff manager's draft report.) The introduction of a new registry service should not create a situation in which commercial gain at the center comes at cost that is incurred by parties at the network's edges, without giving those who incur the cost a choice about it. We appreciate the opportunity to comment, and look forward to further contributing to the development of a fair and objective process for assessing new registry services. Message from J. Scott Evans to Barbara Roseman 7 November 2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- From: "J. Scott Evans" To: <pdp-reports@xxxxxx> Subject: IPC comments for Staff Manager's Issues Report on the Development of a Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 17:41:39 -0500 Dear Ms. Roseman: [T]he IPC Leadership thanks the Staff Manager for the opportunity to provide its comments for the New Registry Services Issue Report. Given the monopolistic nature of registry-level services, the members of the IPC may be greatly affected by the introduction of such services. For this reason, the IPC welcomes the initiation of a PDP on new registry services and looks forward to working through the process with other stakeholders in the Internet community. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with our comments. Kind regards. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY J. Scott Evans, President Message from Mark McFadden to Barbara Roseman 11 November 2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- From: "Mark McFadden" To: "'Barbara Roseman'" Cc: <ispcp@xxxxxx>, <iaison6c@xxxxxx> Subject: ISPCP Statement on Issues Report for Proposed Registry Services Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:21:21 -0600 Regarding the Proposed Issues Report on Registry Services Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency The ISPCP Constituency has a direct connection with a significant body of Internet stakeholders. Our customers - those people connected to the Internet - are the people and organizations most affected by unexpected changes in the Internet. This includes the introduction of new or modified registry services. Naturally, the ISPCP constituency needs to be a significant contributor to the Registry Services PDP process. ISPs are in a unique position to help guide policy development on new registry services. As those who have been largely responsible for the stability of the Internet, we believe that it is vitally important that the GNSO and its Council balance the need to move quickly on potential registry services while carefully thinking through operational and legal impacts of any recommendations. Our constituency actively supports the principle of maintaining the stability that the Internet has always enjoyed. Specifically, we believe that there is a requirement for technical, security and stability reviews for any newly proposed registry service. In addition, we believe that any significant change to registry services - that significantly changes or alters fundamental functions of DNS related services - should also be subject to an explicit, public, and extensive security, stability and technical review. No other group in the GNSO is as well positioned as the ISPCP to coordinate the technical evaluation of the protocol and operational impacts of a proposed change to registry services. Our constituency works daily with both the protocol standards that make the DNS work and is fully aware of the operational issues that are not part of the protocols, but which are embedded in the operational behavior of Internet protocols and services. Fundamentally, our constituency believes that: No new registry service should be introduced without an explicit, public evaluation of its technical, stability and security implications; No significant changes to registry services should take place that have the potential to significantly change the behaviour of underlying Internet services; The ISPCP constituency should be a central contributor to any discussion of the technical implications of the introduction of new registry services; All constituencies should be bound by the "principle of least astonishment" in the development of new services that affect the foundation protocols of the Internet; and, All participants in GNSO constituencies should be bound by principles of operational security and stability for the Internet's user community. The ISP community must be a central part of the PDP process and any process that evaluates any future registry service offerings. If the ISPCP is not an explicit participant in the process, they must be able to participate by identifying appropriate expert analysts who can represent the operational interests of ISPs. On behalf of the ISPCP Constituency, Mark McFadden ISPCP Secretariat Message from Ross Wm. Rader to Barbara Roseman 14 November 2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:15:49 -0500 From: "Ross Wm. Rader" Barbara, I write to you on behalf of Tucows Inc. and those registrars that chose to provide me with the feedback I solicited in my message to the Registrar Constituency of November 4, 2003 (<http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg00820.html> ) concerning your draft report, "Excerpt from Draft Version of Staff Managers Issues Report for the Development of a Process for the Introduction of New or Modified Registry Services". This communication is not an official communication of the Registrar Constituency and should not be viewed as such. Thank you in advance for taking the time to review these (late) comments concerning your report excerpt. The excerpt is quite comprehensive and will likely serve as a useful basis for discussion and resolution of the issues you have identified. There are however three items of specific interest to registrars that you may wish to consider for inclusion in your document; Specifically determining the definition of a "registry service". This is very unclear to the registrars that I spoke to and will be the lynchpin in any discussions moving forward. There is a strongly held belief held by members of the constituency that there needs to be a distinction drawn between the evaluation of services that benefit from the registry having exclusive access to the TLD database and those that do not. Clarifying the intended nature of the registry contracts. This is not so much a matter for the policy development process, but rather, a statement that the ICANN Staff or Board can make to clarify whether the existing registry contracts are, as one member put it "...intended to be in the form of an outsourced arrangement where a registry operator provides a specified service (e.g domain name registration) for a specified price (e.g $6) for the ICANN community, OR is the registry agreement intended to be in the form of a licence right to operate a particular TLD and generate revenue based on the services possible from such a role (subject to some maximum price controls on core services)?" First examining the question of whether or not new registry services should be introduced prior to examining the question of how new registry services should be introduced. We would appreciate specific clarification on each of these questions. Given that a significant portion of the policy development process is analysis, we must ensure that we promote a complete and thorough analysis of the salient issues. The answers to each of these question will shape the nature of the policy development discussion on a very fundamental level and it is imperative that the community proceeds with the policy development process with the context that answers to these questions can provide. We therefore strongly urge that these matters are considered in some way by your report. I thank you again for your time and attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require further clarification regarding the issues that I raise with this message. Warm regards, Ross Wm. Rader Tucows Inc. Message from Jeff Neuman to Barbara Roseman 7 November 2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- From: "Neuman, Jeff" To: Barbara Roseman, Paul Twomey, John Jeffrey, Kurt Pritz, pdp-reports@xxxxxx, Vint Cerf, Alejandro Pisanty Cc: GNSO Secretariat, GNSO Council, Tina Dam Subject: Unsponsored gTLD Registries Statement on Registry Services Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:54:55 -0500 UNSPONSORED REGISTRIES STATEMENT Regarding the Proposed Issues Report on Registry Services The gTLD Registries Constituency of the Generic Names Supporting Organization is currently comprised of the three Sponsored and six Unsponsored Registry Operators, including Afilias, Ltd. (.info), DotCooperation, LLC (.coop), Global Name Registry (.name), Musedoma (.museum), NeuLevel, Inc. (.biz), Public Interest Registry (.org), RegistryPro (.pro), SITA (.aero) and VeriSign (.com & .net). On behalf of the six Unsponsored gTLD Registry Operators, we submit the following statement set forth below: BACKGROUND Each of the gTLD Registry Operators has entered an agreement with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers which governs the relationship between ICANN and the individual registry operator. It should be noted that only the Unsponsored Registry Agreements have any provisions regarding "Registry Services." In addition, the Unsponsored Registry contracts only provide that ICANN consent to the price of a new "Registry Service" so long as the operation as such service does not truly threaten the technical stability of the domain name system. While this constituency recognizes the need for an ICANN procedure for prompt technical and security impact review of proposed "Registry Service", with a predictable, streamlined and appropriate market-based approach, the contracts themselves do not give ICANN or any third party, including any of the GNSO Constituencies, Supporting Organizations, Task Forces or Advisory Committees, the ability to consent to any other aspects of "Registry Services." The applicable contracts do not provide a role for ICANN with respect to prices or specifications for services or products provided by registries that are not "Registry Services" as defined in such agreements. To the extent that ICANN wishes to increase its scope and/or powers with respect to "Registry Services", it may only do so in accordance with its agreements or with the express written consent of those with which it has contracts (namely, the Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars). In addition, the meaning of such agreements will be governed according to applicable legal principles. It cannot be said that any interpretation by one party after having entered the agreement is binding on the other party or evidences ambiguity. In addition, interpretations offered by third parties have no particular relevance in determining the meaning intended by the parties to the relevant agreements. To the extent that there are any disputes over the meaning of any terms within ICANN's Agreements with the registries, there is a built in dispute resolution process in the contracts. Such dispute resolution does not involve any of the GNSO Constituencies, Supporting Organizations, Task Forces or even Advisory Committees. SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON ISSUES REPORT The gTLD Registries Constituency is extremely concerned about the issues raised in the "Excerpt from Draft Version of Staff Manager's Issues Report for the Development of a Process for the Introduction of New or Modified Registry Services." Not only are most of those issues irrelevant to the introduction of "Registry Services" as defined in the applicable contracts with gTLD Unsponsored Registries, but it also inappropriately suggests that parties other than ICANN and the gTLD Registry Operators might be entitled to prevent the introduction of otherwise lawful new "Registry Services." As stated above, many of these issues involve contractual interpretation that involve only the parties to those contracts, and not the ICANN community as a whole. ICANN may not unilaterally, or through the policy development process, promulgate rules or regulations interpreting these agreements without the consent of the registry operators. Any attempt to do so would be considered a violation of those agreements and subject to the dispute resolution process set forth in such agreements. It is the gTLD Registries Constituency's view that many of the topics identified in the "Issues Report" should not be addressed by the GNSO, Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees, but by the ICANN staff/board and the gTLD Registry Operators. IMPACT OF PDP PROCESS ON GTLD REGISTRIES To state the obvious, if there is any one constituency of the GNSO that this PDP process potentially affects, it is the gTLD Registries, specifically the Unsponsored Registries. Not only does the introduction of "Registry Services" impact the competitive environment in which we operate, the investment which we are able to make in our businesses, but ultimately, it affects the very survival of our businesses. Without a procedure for prompt technical and security impact review of proposed "Registry Service" with a predictable, streamlined and appropriate market-based approach by which ICANN exercises its rights with respect to Registry Services, the future of domain name registries is in jeopardy. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS As the ICANN has posted only a portion of the Issues Report, the gTLD Registries reserve the right to comment on the complete Issues Reports, when such report is released. In addition, the comments contained herein do not address the substance of the issues raised in the report, but merely provide, as we were asked to do, an impact statement. Afilias, Ltd. Global Name Registry NeuLevel, Inc. Public Interest Registry RegistryPro, Inc. VeriSign, Inc. Jeffrey J. Neuman Chair, gTLD Registries Constituency e-mail: jeff.neuman@neustar.us GNSO Secretariat