- ispcp - lists.icann.org

RE: [ispcp] Comments on the proposed verisgn agreement
by Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie) Dec. 1, 2005

Dec. 1, 2005

Dear colleagues- Here is the draft that some members worked on today, building on Mark's draft and Tony's statement yesterday. Please review and provide any feedback to the list by midnight tonight (PST). Please note that the document has not been edited for spelling and grammatical errors, but that will be taken care of before finalizing. Any substantive edits are welcome. Regards, Maggie Magnolia Mansourkia Director Internet and Ecommerce Law, MCI 202-736-6448 Voice 202-736-6460 Fax 222-6448 Vnet -----Original Message----- From: owner-ispcp(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mark McFadden Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 5:12 PM To: ispcp(a)icann.org Subject: [ispcp] Personal comments on the proposed verisgn agreement Fellow ISPCPers: The constituency put out a call for comments on the proposed versign agreements. I've seen no comments, so I decided to post my personal thoughts. These are simply a contribution to the discussion and a starting point. I hope the constituency has a vital discussion on the issue and then is able to post to the public forum during the Vancouver meeting. While this may seem like I wrote it from the point of view of the entire ISPCP, I was simply trying to imagine what I would write if I were drafting the ISPCP position. Please, please feel free to use as much or as little of it while you are in Vancouver. ------------------------------------------------- start of comments ------------------------------------------------- A potential response on the Verisign Settlement The vast majority of people impacted by the proposed Verisign settlement are connected to the Internet through the community of Internet Service Providers. Repeatedly, our constituency has stood for reliability, fairness and predictability for all of our customers - the users of the Internet - large and small. Under most circumstances we would welcome a settlement that allows ICANN to return to its core activities. The Verisign dispute has required staff, financial and community resources that could have been better used on other tasks in the last two years. Under most circumstances we would also welcome a settlement that provides a firm foundation for ICANN's finances. The uncertainty regarding income from .com has made it difficult to do strategic planning, help in the prioritization of ICANN activities, and even distinguish between what is possible for ICANN to accomplish and what is not possible. Regretfully, the ISP community within ICANN cannot welcome the current version of the settlement. While ICANN has succeeded at putting choice and competition in the names space, we note that .com remains the dominant top-level domain. It will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. With that in mind it is essential that any new .com agreement provide fairness and equity to the entire Internet community. We believe that the .com agreement with Verisign does not meet this standard. Decisions about funding models for ICANN should not be based on individual contract negotiations with individual providers of services. The ISP community believes that ICANN would set a dangerous precedent if it based financial and strategic decisions on private negotiations with individual vendors of services. We believe that no single entity should have perpetual rights to a resource under ICANN's administrative control. There must be a system of checks and balances in place to ensure that due process and meaningful arbitration is available to users of registry services. Unfortunately, the .com proposal appears to grant Verisign unlimited control of .com without any of these safeguards. This puts the .com registry on a completely different setting than any of the other registries. We also believe that the fundamental costs of management and operation for registries is lower each year. Unfortunately, the proposed settlement allows Verisign to increase their prices 7% per year without any review or safeguard. Regardless of whether or not Verisign intends to take advantage of this, the principle is simple wrong: prices for domain name registration should not rise in the future - the costs should be lower over time. Our customers don't work with registries to register their names - that task is in the hands of registrars. It is unlikely that registrars will be able to absorb the costs on increases in the ICANN fees or registry fees. The result is that those increases will be passed directly to the registrants. The Q&A posted by ICANN staff on the proposed agreements suggests that the 7% allowance is allowed to provide for a transition to market forces to determine prices. The ISP community notes, however, that there is no "market" when a dominant, monopoly is allowed to control a single resource. The ISP community feels that the monopoly registry service ought to have a predictable fair cost that is directly related to the actual cost of providing the administrative registry service. Allowing for incremental 7% per annum increases in unfair to our customers - many of whom have no choice but to stay in .com for business, branding or technical reasons. The ISPCP recommends the following action: - [* I leave this to further discussion *] --------------------------------------------- end of comments --------------------------------------------- -- Mark McFadden Internet and Security Programs University of Wisconsin Milwaukee School of Continuing Education 161 W. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 6000 Milwaukee, WI 53203 v: 414-227-3243 e: mcf(a)uwm.edu w: http://www.sce.uwm.edu

1 0

RE: [ispcp] Personal comments on the proposed verisgn agreement
by Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie) Nov. 30, 2005

Nov. 30, 2005

Mark- I agree with what you've posted below. Lets take some time today to discuss and I'd be happy to help formulate our response further so we have a final draft to present during our meeting tomorrow. I was supposed to meet with some registrar folks last night to discuss, but my flight was very late getting in, so the question I have yet to resolve in my mind is this- Why was the .com contract brought into the settlement discussions? It was not part of the lawsuit as far as I was aware, right? Thanks, Maggie -----Original Message----- From: owner-ispcp(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mark McFadden Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 5:12 PM To: ispcp(a)icann.org Subject: [ispcp] Personal comments on the proposed verisgn agreement Fellow ISPCPers: The constituency put out a call for comments on the proposed versign agreements. I've seen no comments, so I decided to post my personal thoughts. These are simply a contribution to the discussion and a starting point. I hope the constituency has a vital discussion on the issue and then is able to post to the public forum during the Vancouver meeting. While this may seem like I wrote it from the point of view of the entire ISPCP, I was simply trying to imagine what I would write if I were drafting the ISPCP position. Please, please feel free to use as much or as little of it while you are in Vancouver. ------------------------------------------------- start of comments ------------------------------------------------- A potential response on the Verisign Settlement The vast majority of people impacted by the proposed Verisign settlement are connected to the Internet through the community of Internet Service Providers. Repeatedly, our constituency has stood for reliability, fairness and predictability for all of our customers - the users of the Internet - large and small. Under most circumstances we would welcome a settlement that allows ICANN to return to its core activities. The Verisign dispute has required staff, financial and community resources that could have been better used on other tasks in the last two years. Under most circumstances we would also welcome a settlement that provides a firm foundation for ICANN's finances. The uncertainty regarding income from .com has made it difficult to do strategic planning, help in the prioritization of ICANN activities, and even distinguish between what is possible for ICANN to accomplish and what is not possible. Regretfully, the ISP community within ICANN cannot welcome the current version of the settlement. While ICANN has succeeded at putting choice and competition in the names space, we note that .com remains the dominant top-level domain. It will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. With that in mind it is essential that any new .com agreement provide fairness and equity to the entire Internet community. We believe that the .com agreement with Verisign does not meet this standard. Decisions about funding models for ICANN should not be based on individual contract negotiations with individual providers of services. The ISP community believes that ICANN would set a dangerous precedent if it based financial and strategic decisions on private negotiations with individual vendors of services. We believe that no single entity should have perpetual rights to a resource under ICANN's administrative control. There must be a system of checks and balances in place to ensure that due process and meaningful arbitration is available to users of registry services. Unfortunately, the .com proposal appears to grant Verisign unlimited control of .com without any of these safeguards. This puts the .com registry on a completely different setting than any of the other registries. We also believe that the fundamental costs of management and operation for registries is lower each year. Unfortunately, the proposed settlement allows Verisign to increase their prices 7% per year without any review or safeguard. Regardless of whether or not Verisign intends to take advantage of this, the principle is simple wrong: prices for domain name registration should not rise in the future - the costs should be lower over time. Our customers don't work with registries to register their names - that task is in the hands of registrars. It is unlikely that registrars will be able to absorb the costs on increases in the ICANN fees or registry fees. The result is that those increases will be passed directly to the registrants. The Q&A posted by ICANN staff on the proposed agreements suggests that the 7% allowance is allowed to provide for a transition to market forces to determine prices. The ISP community notes, however, that there is no "market" when a dominant, monopoly is allowed to control a single resource. The ISP community feels that the monopoly registry service ought to have a predictable fair cost that is directly related to the actual cost of providing the administrative registry service. Allowing for incremental 7% per annum increases in unfair to our customers - many of whom have no choice but to stay in .com for business, branding or technical reasons. The ISPCP recommends the following action: - [* I leave this to further discussion *] --------------------------------------------- end of comments --------------------------------------------- -- Mark McFadden Internet and Security Programs University of Wisconsin Milwaukee School of Continuing Education 161 W. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 6000 Milwaukee, WI 53203 v: 414-227-3243 e: mcf(a)uwm.edu w: http://www.sce.uwm.edu

1 0

Personal comments on the proposed verisgn agreement
by Mark McFadden Nov. 28, 2005

Nov. 28, 2005

Fellow ISPCPers: The constituency put out a call for comments on the proposed versign agreements. I've seen no comments, so I decided to post my personal thoughts. These are simply a contribution to the discussion and a starting point. I hope the constituency has a vital discussion on the issue and then is able to post to the public forum during the Vancouver meeting. While this may seem like I wrote it from the point of view of the entire ISPCP, I was simply trying to imagine what I would write if I were drafting the ISPCP position. Please, please feel free to use as much or as little of it while you are in Vancouver. ------------------------------------------------- start of comments ------------------------------------------------- A potential response on the Verisign Settlement The vast majority of people impacted by the proposed Verisign settlement are connected to the Internet through the community of Internet Service Providers. Repeatedly, our constituency has stood for reliability, fairness and predictability for all of our customers - the users of the Internet - large and small. Under most circumstances we would welcome a settlement that allows ICANN to return to its core activities. The Verisign dispute has required staff, financial and community resources that could have been better used on other tasks in the last two years. Under most circumstances we would also welcome a settlement that provides a firm foundation for ICANN's finances. The uncertainty regarding income from .com has made it difficult to do strategic planning, help in the prioritization of ICANN activities, and even distinguish between what is possible for ICANN to accomplish and what is not possible. Regretfully, the ISP community within ICANN cannot welcome the current version of the settlement. While ICANN has succeeded at putting choice and competition in the names space, we note that .com remains the dominant top-level domain. It will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. With that in mind it is essential that any new .com agreement provide fairness and equity to the entire Internet community. We believe that the .com agreement with Verisign does not meet this standard. Decisions about funding models for ICANN should not be based on individual contract negotiations with individual providers of services. The ISP community believes that ICANN would set a dangerous precedent if it based financial and strategic decisions on private negotiations with individual vendors of services. We believe that no single entity should have perpetual rights to a resource under ICANN's administrative control. There must be a system of checks and balances in place to ensure that due process and meaningful arbitration is available to users of registry services. Unfortunately, the .com proposal appears to grant Verisign unlimited control of .com without any of these safeguards. This puts the .com registry on a completely different setting than any of the other registries. We also believe that the fundamental costs of management and operation for registries is lower each year. Unfortunately, the proposed settlement allows Verisign to increase their prices 7% per year without any review or safeguard. Regardless of whether or not Verisign intends to take advantage of this, the principle is simple wrong: prices for domain name registration should not rise in the future - the costs should be lower over time. Our customers don't work with registries to register their names - that task is in the hands of registrars. It is unlikely that registrars will be able to absorb the costs on increases in the ICANN fees or registry fees. The result is that those increases will be passed directly to the registrants. The Q&A posted by ICANN staff on the proposed agreements suggests that the 7% allowance is allowed to provide for a transition to market forces to determine prices. The ISP community notes, however, that there is no "market" when a dominant, monopoly is allowed to control a single resource. The ISP community feels that the monopoly registry service ought to have a predictable fair cost that is directly related to the actual cost of providing the administrative registry service. Allowing for incremental 7% per annum increases in unfair to our customers - many of whom have no choice but to stay in .com for business, branding or technical reasons. The ISPCP recommends the following action: - [* I leave this to further discussion *] --------------------------------------------- end of comments --------------------------------------------- -- Mark McFadden Internet and Security Programs University of Wisconsin Milwaukee School of Continuing Education 161 W. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 6000 Milwaukee, WI 53203 v: 414-227-3243 e: mcf(a)uwm.edu w: http://www.sce.uwm.edu

1 0

RE: [ispcp] {Secretariat] ISPCP Welcome Dinner
by Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie) Nov. 26, 2005

Nov. 26, 2005

Thanks for all the details, Mark. I'll miss the dinner as I don't get in until Tuesday afternoon; have fun and I look forward to seeing you all next week. Magnolia Mansourkia Director Internet and Ecommerce Law, MCI 202-736-6448 Voice 202-736-6460 Fax 222-6448 Vnet -----Original Message----- From: owner-ispcp(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mark McFadden Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 8:38 PM To: ispcp(a)icann.org Subject: [ispcp] {Secretariat] ISPCP Welcome Dinner ISPCP Constituency Dinner Monday, 28 November 2005 1830 - 2200 Meet 1815/1830 - Lobby of the Westin I hope you are planning to be in Vancouver next week for the ICANN meetings! We always try to have a constituency gathering for fellowship, food, and getting to know each other better. At this meeting we are planning to have an informal discussion of our response to the proposed Verisign settlement. This will be an informal supplement to our current call for comments from the constituency. Most important is the chance to get together in an informal setting. We'll meet in the lobby of the Westin (the meeting venue) at 1830 on Monday, 28 November 2005. mark -- Mark McFadden Secretariat Internet Service Provider and Connectivity Provider Constituency gNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Contact me: e: mcf(a)uwm.edu Y!IM: mcfadden AIM: McElmside

1 0

[Secretariat] Call for Nominations - ISPCP gNSO Representative
by Mark McFadden Nov. 26, 2005

Nov. 26, 2005

---------------------------------------------------------------- Internet Service Provider and Connectivity Provider Constituency Generic Names Supporting Organization -- ICANN ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2005 November 23 CALL FOR NOMINATIONS - GNSO COUNCIL In accordance with both the ICANN bylaws and the ISPCP bylaws, this is the official call for nominations to one open seat for the GNSO Council. According to the ISPCP Articles adopted at the Santiago meeting of the ISP and Connectivity Providers constituency (and later amended between the Melbourne and Stockholm ICANN meetings) an election of representatives to the Names Council is to take place when representative's terms expire or when vacancies for the representative positions exist. With the adoption of the most recent ICANN By-laws, the ISPCP is required to elect one member to the GNSO Council. This member will be taking the seat currently held by Tony Holmes. We are looking for a person from the constituency to fill this position. The ISPCP Articles call for a nomination period of two weeks. As has been the policy of the constituency since the Stockholm ICANN meeting we ask the person currently holding the position of representative to the gNSO Names Council to continue in that role during the election process. Accordingly, the ISPCP Secretariat has asked Tony Holmes to continue in this role until the completion of the election. Every member of the ISPCP may nominate one candidate for the available position. This mail requests that you nominate eligible ISPCP members to be elected to the GNSO Names Council. To make a nomination please mail the following information to the election manager: --> the name of the nominee --> the electronic mail address of the nominee --> the ISPCP member organization to which the nominee belongs --> if possible, a voice phone number for the nominee During the nomination period, potential nominees will be asked to indicate their willingness to serve as a representative to the gNSO Names Council. The nomination period opens on Friday, 25 November 2005 at 2200 GMT closes on Friday, 9 December 2005 at 2200 GMT Nominations should be sent to the ISPCP Secretariat at: ispcp-nominations(a)mcfaddencentral.com If you have questions relating to the election, the constituency Articles or the nomination process please contact the current Secretariat of the constituency: Mark McFadden at ispcp-activity(a)mcfaddencentral.com.

3 2

[Secretariat] Call for Nominations - ICANN Nominating Committee
by Mark McFadden Nov. 25, 2005

Nov. 25, 2005

---------------------------------------------------------------- Internet Service Provider and Connectivity Provider Constituency Generic Names Supporting Organization -- ICANN ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2005 November 23 CALL FOR NOMINATIONS - ICANN NONCOM REPRESENTATIVE This is the official call for nominations for an ISPCP representative to ICANN's Nominating Committee. The ICANN Bylaws (Article 7) establishes a Nominating Committee of ICANN, responsible for the selection of all ICANN Directors except the President and those Directors selected by ICANN's Supporting Organizations. Section 2, part 8 of those by-laws ensure that our constituency is allowed to have one voting delegate to the ISPCP Nominating Committee. Every member of the ISPCP may nominate one candidate for the position of ISPCP representative to the ICANN Nominating Committee. This mail requests that you nominate an eligible ISPCP member to be elected as this year's ISPCP delegate to the ICANN Nominating Committee. To make a nomination, please mail the following information to the election manager: --> the name of the nominee --> the electronic mail address of the nominee the ISPCP member --> organization to which the nominee belongs --> if possible, a voice phone number for the nominee During the nomination period, potential nominees will be asked to indicate their willingness to serve as the representative. The nomination period opens on Friday, 25 November 2005 at 2200 GMT closes on Sunday, 9 December 2005 at 2200 GMT Nominations should be sent to the ISPCP Secretariat at: ispcp-nominations(a)mcfaddencentral.com If you have questions relating to the election, the constituency Articles or the nomination process please contact the current Secretariat of the constituency: Mark McFadden at ispcp-activity(a)mcfaddencentral.com.

1 0

{Secretariat] ISPCP Welcome Dinner
by Mark McFadden Nov. 25, 2005

Nov. 25, 2005

ISPCP Constituency Dinner Monday, 28 November 2005 1830 - 2200 Meet 1815/1830 - Lobby of the Westin I hope you are planning to be in Vancouver next week for the ICANN meetings! We always try to have a constituency gathering for fellowship, food, and getting to know each other better. At this meeting we are planning to have an informal discussion of our response to the proposed Verisign settlement. This will be an informal supplement to our current call for comments from the constituency. Most important is the chance to get together in an informal setting. We'll meet in the lobby of the Westin (the meeting venue) at 1830 on Monday, 28 November 2005. mark -- Mark McFadden Secretariat Internet Service Provider and Connectivity Provider Constituency gNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Contact me: e: mcf(a)uwm.edu Y!IM: mcfadden AIM: McElmside

2 1

[Secretariat] Draft ISPCP Meeting Agenda
by Mark McFadden Nov. 25, 2005

Nov. 25, 2005

All: The ISPCP meeting at the next ICANN meeting is scheduled for 1430 to 1630 on Thursday, 1 December 2005. This is a draft agenda for the meeting -- pending further comment and review by the constituency at the meeting. ================================================================= Agenda of the ISPCP Constituency Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 1430 to 1630 - Thursday, 1 December 2005 01] Welcome from the ISPCP Chair - Introductions 02] Introduction and discussion of meeting agenda 03] Update on the WHOIS task force work in the gNSO 04] Consequences of WSIS for ISPs and Connectivity Providers 05] Update on IDN implementation issues and strategies 06] Status update on the ICANN Strategic Plan 07] Report from ICANN NomCom 2005 Representative 08] Discussion of the VeriSign Settlement and Impacts on ISPCP 09] Constituency elections and administrative activity 10] Any Other Business ================================================================= mark -- Mark McFadden Secretariat Internet Service Provider and Connectivity Provider Constituency gNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Contact me: e: mcf(a)uwm.edu Y!IM: mcfadden AIM: McElmside

1 0

{Secretariat] - Inviation to comment on Verisign Settlement
by Mark McFadden Nov. 24, 2005

Nov. 24, 2005

ISPCP members: In preparation for the ISPCP making a statement on the proposed Verisign settlement, please consider making comments to the ISPCP mailing list. We encourage everyone to make comments that will be helpful in developing a position statement from the ISPCP community. This discussion will also take place at the ISPCP Constituency meeting on Thursday, 1 December 2005. Our constituency meeting is at 1430 on that Thursday in room Oak 1. The proposed settlement papers are available at this URL: http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/settlement-agreements.htm The October 24th statement of the ICANN Board is available at this URL: http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-24oct05.htm The ICANN announcement on extending the comment period is available at this URL: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-10nov05.htm Recent clarifications on the settlement have been posted by ICANN staff at this URL: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-21nov05.htm I'm looking forward to seeing you in Vancouver. Please take a moment and forward any comments you might have about the proposed Verisign agreement directly to the list. mark -- Mark McFadden Secretariat Internet Service Provider and Connectivity Provider Constituency gNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Contact me: e: mcf(a)uwm.edu Y!IM: mcfadden AIM: McElmside

1 0

[Secretariat] Important Dates and Times for the ICANN Vancouver Meeting
by Mark McFadden Nov. 24, 2005

Nov. 24, 2005

The ISPCP welcomes you to the Vancouver ICANN Meetings. Our Constituency meeting in on Thursday, 2:30pm to 4:30pm in room Oak 1 on the second floor. Other meetings and sessions of interest to the ISPCP Community include: TUESDAY - 29 November 2005 Morning [??] - Discussion on the proposed Verisign settlement 1430 - 1830 - Privacy Discussion on issues surrounding whois 1700 - 1830 - GAC Open Session 1830 - 2200 - ISPCP Evening Dinner WEDNESDAY - 30 November 2005 0900 - 1130 - Public workshop on DNSsec 1230 - 1930 - IDN Workshop THURSDAY - 1 December 2005 1000 - 1200 - Joint meeting of the GAC and ASO 1000 - 1400 - Cross constituency meeting with IP and Business 1430 - 1630 - ISPCP Constituency Meeting FRIDAY - 2 December 2005 0830 - 1130 - Strategic Planning Workshop 1030 - 1230 - GNSO Public Forum 1100 - 1300 - ASO Public Forum 1330 - 1730 - Public Forum SATURDAY - 3 December 2005 0900 - 1300 - Public Forum 1400 - 1800 - ALAC SUNDAY - 4 December 2005 0830 - 1230 - Board Meeting -- Mark McFadden Secretariat Internet Service Provider and Connectivity Provider Constituency gNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Contact me: e: mcf(a)uwm.edu Y!IM: mcfadden AIM: McElmside

1 0