November 20, 2006
Dear Board Members and
Mr. Twomey
The Business
Constituency opposes a Board decision on the .biz; .info; .org registry
agreements at the upcoming meeting of the Board, November 22, 2006. We ask the
Board to accept the recommendation of the GNSO Council of 28 September 2006, as
described below, and further, to await and consider the expert advice that will
be the output of the “independent study by a reputable economic
consulting firm or organization to deliver findings on economic questions
“… called for in the Board’s 18 October 2006 resolution.
We remind the Board and
the staff of the GNSO Council’s resolution, available on the GNSO website
at http://www.gnso.icann.org/resolutions, where the GNSO council requested the
Board to delay any decision on these contracts until the ICANN board meeting
after the Sao Paolo ICANN meeting 2006, and to take into account the current
outcome of the PDPFeb06 task force at that time.
On 18 October 2006 the
Board meeting passed resolution http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-1Oct06.htm
entitled Economic Study of the Proposed Registry Agreements. In that
resolution, the Board noted that it has carefully considered the proposed new
agreements [with the three registries], and the public comments and the
registry responses, and found that the approval of the new agreements would be
beneficial for ICANN and the Internet community, provided that the registry
operators and ICANN are able to agree to appropriate revisions to the proposed
agreements to address competition related issues, such as differential pricing.
However, of significance
to our recommendation to the Board, the resolution acknowledged the need for
high levels of economic expertise. And the resolution then “directed the
President to commission an independent study by a reputable economic consulting
firm or organization to deliver findings on economic questions relating to the
domain registration market, and went on to identify important issues, that to
the Business Constituency’s members are essential to address in an open
and transparent manner.
It is important to
ensure this level of accountability and transparency related to the independent
study’s findings, so that ICANN’s community of stakeholders can
fully support the decisions that are made by the Board, based on
recommendations of the ICANN staff, but guided by the expert advice/economic
expertise.
We are in agreement that
these are complex issues; therefore, we have taken the time to examine where
there are other pressures that may be influencing the rush to approve these
agreements. We address below our concern that budget considerations may be
influencing a rushed decision. We believe that the Board can be of assistance
in the discussions with the Registrars, and thus remove or ameliorate that
pressure.
Instead of voting, we
urge the Board to discuss with the President and ICANN staff the progress they
have made in identifying independent expert advice; if the Staff and President
are unable to pursue the study authorization as directed in the Board
resolution immediately, the Board could also task the President and staff to
immediately establish a interim panel of three experts in competition, anti-trust,
and market analysis to provide interim consultation to the GNSO Council and
Task Force, and of course, as a resource to the staff and Board.
This will support the
policy development process while allowing the ICANN President and staff to
focus on organizing the authorized study.
Further, given that the
ICANN staff have not asked the Registrars to approve the budget and that this
creates a financial tension, we urge the Board at the Sao Paolo meeting, to
provide guidance and support to the staff, including providing active listening
and pragmatic support to the discussions with the Registrars regarding how to
advance their approval of the ICANN budget.
Conclusion:
The Board should not vote on these contracts at this time, but the Board has a
critical role to play in advancing toward a time when it is both appropriate
and supportable to vote on agreements with these registries.
We, like the ICANN
Board, seek a solution that can be broadly supportable by ICANN, the
stakeholders; the Board, the registries and the registrars, and all other
stakeholder representatives. We do believe that this is attainable.
For instance, if the
expert advice indicates that there are no competition problems and that there
are sufficient safeguards, our constituency will be more informed about why we
should support the approval of the registry agreements. In our view, there must
be an appropriate balance of respecting the ICANN stakeholders’ concerns
and interests, with a predictable and accountable contracting environment in
renewals of registry agreements.
Financial security is
one element of a stable and predictable environment for ICANN and its
stakeholders. Trust and respect for decisions and for the processes that lead
to decisions are also key elements.
It is after all, our
members and the millions of other businesses who build the Internet, create the
applications and content, and provide services and products to the just over
one billion Internet users. We fully appreciate and value the role that
registry operations play in the functioning of the Internet Domain Name System.
However, registries are suppliers, and ICANN registry agreements, and
ICANN’s actions must reflect the balance of supplier interests with the
broader responsibilities that ICANN has.
The Officers of the
Commercial and Business Constituency (BC)
Marilyn
Cade Alistair
Cc: Vint Cerf, Chair,
and ICANN Board
Paul Twomey, ICANN President and CEO
John Jeffrey, ICANN General Counsel
ICANN GNSO Council
ICANN GAC Chair
ICANN Commercial and Business User Constituency