[icann-eu] Re: [ga] Report from the discussion

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Roberto and all remaining assembly members,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Folks,
>
> I am preparing a summary of the discussion, as I promised to Philip, the NC
> Chair.
>
> I will say that, after thorough discussion, the GA has shown rough consensus
> in favour to option A, i.e. to keep the current contract.
> I will obviously quote the figures from the poll (the logical equivalent of
> the "show of hands" at a physical meeting), as already done in a previous
> post.

  I would say that this is an accurate assessment.  It however is
unfortunate
that a 3rd option (Option C?) could not be considered.

>
>
> The reasons for the choice, as expressed by some participants, are mainly:
> - "horizontal" separation between Registrar and Registry, foreseen in option
> A, is perceived as a better deal than "vertical" separation among TLDs, and
> a better safeguard against a monopolistic position;
> - the switchover to option B is perceived as a change in policy, done
> without previous consultation of the DNSO (whose mission is to provide
> recommandations on policy), and moreover within very strict deadlines,
> absolutely inappropriate to evaluate in depth the implications of such
> change. For instance, some of the details of the new proposal, like some
> attachments, are still unknown as today. Also, this change in policy is
> considered irreversible
> - the financial advantages for the Internet community of option B are not
> balancing off the drawbacks above, as it is understood that the investment
> will be done by VeriSign at its discretion, based on a commercial logic that
> is perfectly legitimate but out of the control of the Internet community.

  This is a major drawback of the "New Deal" contract or Option B.
However had Verisign and the ICANn BoD been willing, some changes
to this part of Option B could have been considered, and if approved
by the DNSO GA, the Constituencies, and the @large, Option B
(With amendments/modifications) might have been preferred to Option A.

>
> The benefits for the Internet community are therefore not identifiable at
> this point in time, and it may be even assumed that other competing
> operators might invest comparable amounts of money in the infrastructure as
> well, if granted similar contracts by ICANN
> - the other claimed advantage of option B, i.e. a different management of
> .org, is minimal in value if of any value at all, because years of practice
> of uncontrolled sale of names in the TLD originally intended for chartered
> use have irreversibely polluted the namespace. Moreover, a future "cleanup"
> action to restore the original charter is specifically opposed by the GA,
> because it is considered contrary to the legitimate interest of bona-fide
> owners of .org names

  I think terms such as "Cleanup" and "Polluted" as it applies the the
.ORG name space are both unnecessary and inconsistent with reality.

>
>
> I would also incidentally note that a change in the charter of .org could be
> very possible under the current contract, if VeriSign reputes this a *good
> thing*. Probably neither ICANN nor the Internet community would oppose
> enforcement of tighter controls on future registrations in .org even if the
> registry stays in VeriSign hands.

  This seems to contradict your above comment/statement Roberto.
Can you explain that please?  And as such, is not what has
been vetted and discussed with respect to the ORG name space
for registrations now, OR in the future irrespective of whether .ORG
remains in Versisgns hands or not.

> Of course, this should be decided by ICANN
> and known to potential investors before the .org registrar part is put on
> sale. I bet though that this will not be done, as the economical value of
> .org, and its sale price, will suffer. ;>)
>
> This is just the report I owe as Chair, and does not preclude in any way
> other actions, like a vote (or a straw poll) on David's comprehensive
> motion, or the presentation of a "minority position" in the form, for
> instance, of Chuck's 10-points document.

  Unfortunately your report, as stated here anyway, is a bit inaccurate
as I have indicated above.  This is unfortunate, and disrespectful to
the internet community and the stakeholders, most especially those
that are .ORG and .NET registrants.  Please consider revising
the areas I have indicated above so as to be more accurate.

>
>
> Comments welcome.
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208