Hi, For anyone interested i also submitted, at the very last minute, a comment as an individual. http://forum.icann.org/lists/net-agreement-renewal/msg00136.html Covering 3 issues: 1. The pre-determination of permissible action if Verisign is found to be in breach of certain subsections of the contract. 2. The blanket permission for Verisign to use Traffic Data in any manner it desires without any discussion of impact analysis of the effect on privacy and other rights. 3. The presumption of renewal a. On 11 May 2011, at 14:42, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
Olivier,
Thank you for taking these steps.
In the draft I circulated, and subsequently submitted as two comments, I addressed only competition policy issues.
There are other public interest problems present in the proposed .NET agreement negotiated between ICANN Legal staff and Verisign GRS Legal staff, and I don't suggest these are not also important to consider, and express an advisory position upon.
Danny Younger privately communicated another interesting issue, the GNSO PDP may never have formally reached the conclusion that registry agreements shall be presumptively renewed. As the .NET agreement relies explicitly upon the presumption that the GNSO PDP did reach such a conclusion, this too is a problem, not only for competition policy reasons, but for transparency and accountability reasons.
In addition, there are features in the proposed .NET agreement which propose substantive changes which have alarmed many.
I simply picked the competition policy as a problem upon which there is a public interest position.
The comments I submitted are available at:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/net-agreement-renewal/msg00009.html
and
http://forum.icann.org/lists/net-agreement-renewal/msg00010.html
Eric ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------