Council, for possible discussion under AOB at the Council meeting May 12. Please note I have just posted this comment to the dot.net public comments web site. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Background I previously posted to ICANN .net public comments, concern about the dissonance in the Telcordia methodology and the GNSO .net report and its recommendation. The GNSO report stated that the number one relative criteria was "Relative Criteria related to promotion of competition." The conclusion of my previous posting was that the methodology of the evaluator's report directly contradicts the essence of the GNSO report. At the Mar del Plata ICANN meeting, there were several questions made by members of the ICANN community, regarding the Telecordia report. Telcordia was asked to respond to the questions raised by the other bidders, and has done so. I fear that the response still misses the essential point. The criteria Telcordia used provided no measure of value of one applicant over another dependent on their current market position in the REGISTRY market - the very market in which the GNSO council was seeking to competitively enhance. Instead, all the measures looked at how the REGISTRAR market might be competitively enhanced. While it was left to Telcordia to design the evaluation criteria, these criteria were signed off by ICANN. The ICANN Board has the responsibility to ensure, as part of their responsibility to maintain the stability and security of the Internet's identifier systems, that an underlying competitive environment is enhanced. It is now up to the ICANN Board to mitigate the negative impact of an award with respect to competitiveness at the Registry level. Proposal Should the ICANN Board decide to award .net to the incumbent, they do so in the knowledge that this sanctions a circa 84% market share in the Registry market. Such an award should only be made based on a set of conditions to mitigate any potential undesirable effects of undue market dominance. Conditions that should be considered include the following: 1. Divestment of all minority interests in all other Registries within say 1 year. 2. Divestment of all interests in all Registrars within say 1 year. 3. A re-bid for .net every 6 years. Philip Sheppard
Dear Council Members, I wanted to share with you an ALAC Statement forwarded today to the ICANN Board. The text is below. Please let me know if you have any questions. ------------- In recent weeks, the At Large Advisory Committee ("ALAC") has been pleased to provide comments, both in writing and at the Mar del Plata meeting, to the ICANN Board and staff about the .NET process and the Telcordia report. While the ALAC does not make any recommendation to ICANN about which registry operator ultimately should be awarded the .NET contract, it does believe that (a) the selection process should be open and transparent; and (b) all public comments solicited by ICANN and submitted in a timely manner by concerned persons, including the ALAC, should be reviewed and considered in the .NET evaluation. The ALAC is concerned with the recent Telcordia report, posted on the ICANN website on 3 May 2005, because it did not respond to any of the public comments submitted to date. Indeed, Telcordia specifically states that it has considered only the comments of the individual bidders about their own bids. We believe that in a matter of public interest, such as the stable operation of the .NET registry, the most important comments are those of the registrants who ultimately will be served by the registry operator, not the commercial bidders competing for the award. Accordingly, we ask that the ICANN Board acknowledge, consider, and respond to the many thoughtful comments submitted during the public comment period prior to a final determination of which company should receive the .NET registry contract. Respectfully submitted, AT LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE -----------
participants (2)
-
Bret Fausett -
Philip Sheppard