Comment on the .NET auto-renew and contract terms
Colleagues, I've drafted a comment in response to http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11apr11-en.htm The comment raises two issues, first, that renewal of legacy monopoly contracts does not achieve a competition policy goal, and second, that the contract could, whether awarded to the legacy monopoly operator or any other party, distinguish between the "registry operator" and "registry technical backend services operator" sets of functions, allowing registrants to select, through their registrars, one of one or more competing registry technical backend services operator(s) for domains in the .NET zone. For those not familiar with the second issue, the original Shared Registry Proposal by Crispin, Gaetano, Langlois and others, developed in the IETF, reduces the registry operator's monopoly power to the few functions of producing (and modernly signing) a unified zone, and coordination among two or more registrars (transfer functions and data pointers where the registry data model is "thin"). If there is anyone who wishes to go on record questioning the wisdom of auto-renewal for Verisign's franchises, and/or ending monopoly in the registry function, drop me a line today as comments close tomorrow. Eric
Hi Eric, On 9 May 2011, at 09:46, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
If there is anyone who wishes to go on record questioning the wisdom of auto-renewal for Verisign's franchises, and/or ending monopoly in the registry function, drop me a line today as comments close tomorrow.
Not that we have a great record of working together, but I would be interested in seeing some telling and convincing comment made. My problem is that the contract itself and the contractual conditions recommended by the GNSO give a presumption of renewal (I argued against it in the Task Force but as usual, was not successful it getting it removed). How do we get around that? a.
On 5/9/11 10:03 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi Eric,
On 9 May 2011, at 09:46, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
If there is anyone who wishes to go on record questioning the wisdom of auto-renewal for Verisign's franchises, and/or ending monopoly in the registry function, drop me a line today as comments close tomorrow.
Not that we have a great record of working together, but I would be interested in seeing some telling and convincing comment made.
True, but this is an area where you and I may be in substantial agreement.
My problem is that the contract itself and the contractual conditions recommended by the GNSO give a presumption of renewal (I argued against it in the Task Force but as usual, was not successful it getting it removed). How do we get around that?
By distinguishing between the utility of predictability of operator and investor continuity where the contracts are recent, furthering a competition policy goal, and the lack of utility of continuity where the contracts are legacy, and the original, and continuous object of transformation policy, consistent with the competition policy goal ICANN was formed to achieve. There is a public interest in reducing the market power of the legacy monopoly incumbent. That the GNSO did not, for whatever reasons, and there are many, arrive at that as goal, is not determinative, as the GNSO does not contain a formal vehicle for the articulation of the public interest. The ALAC is that vehicle, as is the GAC, for those public interests arising from sovereigns. And finally, nothing prevents individual comments, even those pointing out the absurdity of turning competitive awards of finite franchise into the perpetual private property of corporate persons. Eric
Hello all, We don't get around it. We can't.We have no effect on the GNSO. But under the authority mandated in the ICANN bylaws, ALAC has the ability -- arguably an obligation -- to communicate to the Boards directly when it encounters ICANN activity that goes against the public good. And in perfect bottom-up fashion, this is how it's supposed to work. Discussions happening in the regions that percolate up to become global assertions of the public interest. Especially in a case in which Avri and Eric find common ground. :-) I would fully support ALAC's escalation if it can be suitably informed of the issues by those here who are knowledgeable on it. - Evan On 9 May 2011 10:03, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:
Hi Eric,
On 9 May 2011, at 09:46, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
If there is anyone who wishes to go on record questioning the wisdom of auto-renewal for Verisign's franchises, and/or ending monopoly in the registry function, drop me a line today as comments close tomorrow.
Not that we have a great record of working together, but I would be interested in seeing some telling and convincing comment made.
My problem is that the contract itself and the contractual conditions recommended by the GNSO give a presumption of renewal (I argued against it in the Task Force but as usual, was not successful it getting it removed). How do we get around that?
a.
------ 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 ------
-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
Thanks Eric. Just never thought of the second issue in the way outlined, even with what I know of the registry business these days. A recognition of this distinction - between the "registry operator" and the "registry technical backend service operator" - in contract would be a beginning to exploring the competition issues. I would lodging a concern as well as a more formal At-Large response. Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams < ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:
Colleagues,
I've drafted a comment in response to http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11apr11-en.htm
The comment raises two issues, first, that renewal of legacy monopoly contracts does not achieve a competition policy goal, and second, that the contract could, whether awarded to the legacy monopoly operator or any other party, distinguish between the "registry operator" and "registry technical backend services operator" sets of functions, allowing registrants to select, through their registrars, one of one or more competing registry technical backend services operator(s) for domains in the .NET zone.
For those not familiar with the second issue, the original Shared Registry Proposal by Crispin, Gaetano, Langlois and others, developed in the IETF, reduces the registry operator's monopoly power to the few functions of producing (and modernly signing) a unified zone, and coordination among two or more registrars (transfer functions and data pointers where the registry data model is "thin").
If there is anyone who wishes to go on record questioning the wisdom of auto-renewal for Verisign's franchises, and/or ending monopoly in the registry function, drop me a line today as comments close tomorrow.
Eric _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (4)
-
Avri Doria -
Carlton Samuels -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Evan Leibovitch