Public Comment on the .NET auto-renew, proposed contract extension for multiple technical providers
Colleagues, I'm submitting two comments, the SECOND of which follows, proposing contract extension for multiple technical providers. The public announcement is here: http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11apr11-en.htm If anyone wants to co-sign, you'll have to explicitly let me know. I'll be submitting the comment around 9am EDT tomorrow. Begin: The proposed changes to the .NET agreement, while of some utility, do not address the core problem of monopoly power by the registry operator. This is a hold-over from the May 1999 decision to create a locus of competition in a separate registrar function, a decision reversed in November 2010. The contract should be changed to include language which separates the formal Registry Operator (RO) functions (zone file signing, zone file production from one or more distinct data sources, pointer data to registrar held "thin registry" registrant data, registrar transfer processing, registrar invoicing, ICANN reporting and transactional fee processing and payment), from the Data Base Operator (DBO) (aka "registry technical services") set of functions, allowing registrants, through their registrars, to select the underlying competitive DBO for a given domain. The means to allow the .NET contract to be modified, allowing a second, and subsequent Data Base Operators to provide database service to the Registry Operator, is now necessary, in light of the removal of structural separation requirement for legacy contracts. No specific set-aside for ROOT-SERVERS.NET is necessary under a stability and security theory, as the root server operators are capable of designating whether they seek to use a DBO other than the current unique DBO. An additional extension to EPP will be necessary, to allow registrants to select, through the registrar function, their choice of DBO to have custody of their data. It is possible that the registrars with a large number of domains, or other mature database operators, including the operators of other registries, also currently contractually constrained as monopolies, will seek to become Competitive Data Base Operators (CDBOs) for the .NET registry, transforming over 10% of the gTLD domain market from monopoly to competition. The default choice of many users may remain Verisign, the legacy monopoly registry entity. However, where competition is possible, and competition among back-end registry service providers within a single name space is possible, it must be allowed if the competition policy goal is to be achieved in the current decade. End To be sent to net-agreement-renewal@icann.org. Forward as you see fit. Eric
Eric, in line with recognizing initiative coming from the grass-roots and since I have noticed support at NARALO level, I have asked At-Large staff to liaise with ICANN policy staff about this, since the deadline for comments was today. I am happy to announce that we have been kindly given the ability to file an ALAC Statement in time for the Board to consider it during their retreat, if we file it by June 18th, even though it is past the public comments deadline. Seth will set-up a Wiki page and will be liaising with you and Beau Brendler in order to get a proposed first draft up for At-Large comment as soon as possible, and we'll have a comment period open until Sunday 15th May. If it gets support, we'll submit an ALAC Statement. Kind regards, Olivier Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair On 09/05/2011 23:41, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote :
Colleagues,
I'm submitting two comments, the SECOND of which follows, proposing contract extension for multiple technical providers.
The public announcement is here: http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11apr11-en.htm
If anyone wants to co-sign, you'll have to explicitly let me know. I'll be submitting the comment around 9am EDT tomorrow.
Begin:
The proposed changes to the .NET agreement, while of some utility, do not address the core problem of monopoly power by the registry operator. This is a hold-over from the May 1999 decision to create a locus of competition in a separate registrar function, a decision reversed in November 2010.
The contract should be changed to include language which separates the formal Registry Operator (RO) functions (zone file signing, zone file production from one or more distinct data sources, pointer data to registrar held "thin registry" registrant data, registrar transfer processing, registrar invoicing, ICANN reporting and transactional fee processing and payment), from the Data Base Operator (DBO) (aka "registry technical services") set of functions, allowing registrants, through their registrars, to select the underlying competitive DBO for a given domain.
The means to allow the .NET contract to be modified, allowing a second, and subsequent Data Base Operators to provide database service to the Registry Operator, is now necessary, in light of the removal of structural separation requirement for legacy contracts.
No specific set-aside for ROOT-SERVERS.NET is necessary under a stability and security theory, as the root server operators are capable of designating whether they seek to use a DBO other than the current unique DBO.
An additional extension to EPP will be necessary, to allow registrants to select, through the registrar function, their choice of DBO to have custody of their data.
It is possible that the registrars with a large number of domains, or other mature database operators, including the operators of other registries, also currently contractually constrained as monopolies, will seek to become Competitive Data Base Operators (CDBOs) for the .NET registry, transforming over 10% of the gTLD domain market from monopoly to competition.
The default choice of many users may remain Verisign, the legacy monopoly registry entity. However, where competition is possible, and competition among back-end registry service providers within a single name space is possible, it must be allowed if the competition policy goal is to be achieved in the current decade.
End
To be sent to net-agreement-renewal@icann.org. Forward as you see fit.
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 ------
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
On 11/05/2011 03:15, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote :
if we file it by June 18th
Of course - I meant by May 18th. That's what happens when you write past 3:00am... Olivier
Do we have a draft? Wiki url? j On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:
On 11/05/2011 03:15, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote :
if we file it by June 18th
Of course - I meant by May 18th. That's what happens when you write past 3:00am...
Olivier ------ 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 ------
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
Hello Joly, yes, we indeed have a draft, available on the same WIKI URL: https://community.icann.org/x/noHg This is named "Second Draft" since the initial "draft" were the two emails from Eric Brunner Williams. Since we are under pressure to send this statement for it to be considered by the Board, please add your comments to the bottom of that Wiki page by Tuesday 17 May 2011, 11:00 UTC. Many thanks, Olivier On 16/05/2011 20:35, Joly MacFie wrote :
Do we have a draft? Wiki url?
j
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote:
On 11/05/2011 03:15, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote : > if we file it by June 18th
Of course - I meant by May 18th. That's what happens when you write past 3:00am...
Olivier ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
OK I've done a write up on http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=2076 - please let me know of any egregious goofs. j On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:
Hello Joly,
yes, we indeed have a draft, available on the same WIKI URL: https://community.icann.org/x/noHg
This is named "Second Draft" since the initial "draft" were the two emails from Eric Brunner Williams.
Since we are under pressure to send this statement for it to be considered by the Board, please add your comments to the bottom of that Wiki page by Tuesday 17 May 2011, 11:00 UTC. Many thanks,
Olivier
On 16/05/2011 20:35, Joly MacFie wrote :
Do we have a draft? Wiki url?
j
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:
On 11/05/2011 03:15, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote :
if we file it by June 18th
Of course - I meant by May 18th. That's what happens when you write past 3:00am...
Olivier ------ 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 ------
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
i think the word 'purchased' would be more accurate than 'inherited' -- at the start of the second paragraph RT On May 16, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
OK I've done a write up on http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=2076 - please let me know of any egregious goofs.
j
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:
Hello Joly,
yes, we indeed have a draft, available on the same WIKI URL: https://community.icann.org/x/noHg
This is named "Second Draft" since the initial "draft" were the two emails from Eric Brunner Williams.
Since we are under pressure to send this statement for it to be considered by the Board, please add your comments to the bottom of that Wiki page by Tuesday 17 May 2011, 11:00 UTC. Many thanks,
Olivier
On 16/05/2011 20:35, Joly MacFie wrote :
Do we have a draft? Wiki url?
j
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:
On 11/05/2011 03:15, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote :
if we file it by June 18th
Of course - I meant by May 18th. That's what happens when you write past 3:00am...
Olivier ------ 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 ------
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - ------ 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 ------
Thanks. Reworded. On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@me.com>wrote:
i think the word *'purchased'* would be more accurate than *'inherited' *-- at the start of the second paragraph
RT
On May 16, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
OK I've done a write up on http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=2076 - please let me know of any egregious goofs.
j
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com
wrote:
Hello Joly,
yes, we indeed have a draft, available on the same WIKI URL:
https://community.icann.org/x/noHg
This is named "Second Draft" since the initial "draft" were the two emails
from Eric Brunner Williams.
Since we are under pressure to send this statement for it to be considered
by the Board, please add your comments to the bottom of that Wiki page by
Tuesday 17 May 2011, 11:00 UTC.
Many thanks,
Olivier
On 16/05/2011 20:35, Joly MacFie wrote :
Do we have a draft? Wiki url?
j
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com
wrote:
On 11/05/2011 03:15, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote :
if we file it by June 18th
Of course - I meant by May 18th. That's what happens when you write past
3:00am...
Olivier
------
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
------
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - ------ 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 ------
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
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
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 ------
participants (6)
-
Avri Doria -
Danny Younger -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Joly MacFie -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Richard Tindal