Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1448
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, October 1 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1448

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:22:17 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] regulating content

Danny,

As one of the .US policy council members I think I can answer a couple of
your questions.

(4) Our next meeting is scheduled for next Tuesday. It was suppose to be
last week but there was some scheduling problems.

(3) It has been a month or two since our last meeting, according to my
records.

(2) We have not yet discussed the current proposed policy, but in our last
call we did discuss the .kids legislation and NeuStar's attempt to launch
the .kids.us TLD. Other topics for discussion next week's call in addition
to the .kids policy, nexis requirements, reporting false Whois and one other
issue that currently escapes me.

(1) Do not have an answer to this one.

The Policy Council has agreed that individuals would never speak on behalf
of the council, so these are just my personal comments and recollection, as
I am not authorized to speak on behalf of the Policy Council. I hope this
helps.

Mike

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 1:08 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] regulating content

Dear Jeff,

I note that you have extended the comment period on your first discussion
draft of content guidelines and requirements for the kids.us namespace
posted
at http://www.neustar.us/kids/kidsus_content_policy.pdf

A few questions:

1.  Are the public comments on this draft posted anywhere?
2.  What input have you received from the .us Policy Council on this topic
and where might that input be found?
3.  When did the .us Policy Council last meet?
4.  When is their next meeting scheduled?

Best regards,
Danny

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:55:13 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

I apologize if this takes me over my posting limit.  I haven't kept count
and didn't take the time to check.

A root problem of this whole issue is the heavy reliance on voting to
presumably reach consensus.  It is very efficient but often does not really
produce consensus.

Ideally, the various stakeholders would work together to come up with a
position that all could support even if it is not their ideal position.  But
that kind of process is much more time consuming on everyone's part.  So
voting is an easy way around it, even if it doesn't really produce
consensus.

As long as voting is used as the predominant method, it seems reasonable
that neither registries/registrars nor users should be able to dominate the
process and thereby eliminate any need to work on acceptable compromises
that hopefully would have broader benefit than just meeting the needs of a
small group that happens to control the voting block.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 1:59 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; DNSO General Assembly
> Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> 
> 
> One thing this dialogue underscores is the wisdom behind the 
> original idea
> of "consensus." "Consensus," at least as I've always 
> understood it, looks
> for agreement among impacted/self-interested parties and so, 
> implicitly,
> weighs the views of those impacted by an issue more heavily 
> than those who
> are not. The current debate -- between two fixed ideas of how 
> to divide
> votes -- rests on the false assumption that a single correct 
> division exists
> for every issue that comes before the GNSO.
> 
> A better process would weigh registry and registrar interests 
> more heavily
> on an issue in which registry/registrar interests predominate 
> (e.g. policy
> solutions for "add storms") and user interests more heavily when their
> interests predominate (e.g. UDRP). Equal weighting would be 
> appropriate some
> of the time too. That kind of flexible process, however, requires the
> various constituencies to show a degree of self-awareness 
> about when and how
> they are impacted that we haven't yet seen.
> 
> The ERC tries to solve the problem by giving two sets of 
> interests equal
> votes and allowing NomComm-appointed Council members to tip 
> the balance.
> Presumably, one of the things that will guide the NomComm 
> members' votes is
> an independent sense of which camp is more affected by the 
> outcomes. Is
> there a better solution than appointing three baby-sitters to 
> the Names
> Council? I would hope so. I hear both camps essentially 
> arguing for the same
> thing: a desire for a voice proportionate to the size and 
> nature of the
> problem under discussion. Surely there's a way of solving 
> that problem on
> which all constituencies could agree.
> 
>            -- Bret
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 21:19:52 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:36:47 -0400, you wrote:

>Thanks Elizabeth, we do recognize the difference at Neustar.  However, we
>also recognize that there are certain issues that should be considered
>"global policy issues" and for these it is more appropriate to have a global
>body, like the ICANN, to provide that forum than to rely on just the local
>community.  A few examples of these types of issues include (1) Grace
>Periods, (2) Transfers, (3) Escrow, (4) Dispute Resolution Policies, and (5)
>Uniform Deletion Periods, etc. 

From the consumer's perspective, especially if international, life would be
easier if all TLDs, either global or country based, adopted similar policies
and instruments for registration - I tried it on my own, and registering and
maintaining domain names spanning over a large number of g- and cc-TLDs is
almost a nightmare.

However, this should be accomplished more by developing intelligent open
standards that countries should adopt whenever they like it, rather than by
forcing them from the centre. Even if you thought that there can be an
uniform solution applicable to the whole world, you have to cope with the
fact that something called "national sovereignty" still exists and that most
countries of the world still like to manage things their own way, rather
than the way an US-based corporation would think desirable. 

But personally, I think that there is still so much cultural difference
between the world's countries that a solution which fits the needs and
customs of the whole world cannot exist. The Internet has grown and will
grow thanks to its ability to be managed locally and loosely as much as
possible, as opposite to strongly centralized networks, which are too rigid
to encompass the world's needs, and have almost disappeared (at least in the
data space).
- -- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
- --------> http://bertola.eu.org/ - Archivio FAQ e molto altro... <--------
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:23:41 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Appendix G

Jeff,

Thank you for the explanation.  I now better understand the difference 
between a Registry Service and a non-registry service offered by a registry, 
although I still don't understand whether we have an actual procedure that 
governs the launch of new Registry Services.  

Good luck with your new service.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:02:32 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Jeff and all assembly members,

Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Thanks Elizabeth, we do recognize the difference at Neustar.  However, we
> also recognize that there are certain issues that should be considered
> "global policy issues" and for these it is more appropriate to have a global
> body, like the ICANN, to provide that forum than to rely on just the local
> community.  A few examples of these types of issues include (1) Grace
> Periods, (2) Transfers, (3) Escrow, (4) Dispute Resolution Policies, and (5)
> Uniform Deletion Periods, etc.

  I believe that the forum of which you refer is the DNSO GA.  And so
far it seems to be a good one for the most part.

  Global issues or such  what you mention may indeed seem global
in some respects, but are also local as well.  They should be addressed
on a case by case basis as local issues.  Of all or the issues you
seem to believe are global that you listed, all also have huge local
ramifications.  Therefore it would seem both wise and necessary that
they be addressed locally as they apply to ccTLD's and registrants
of gTLD's as well that do not reside in the US.

>
>
> As our contract with the Department of Commerce sets forth, we are required
> to look towards ICANN for global policy issues.  It is in the ICANN arena
> that we often choose to participate from both a ccTLD and gTLD perspective
> because in our opinion some of these issues affect all global users equally.

  Your opinion is not widely shared, obviously...

>
> In this respect, for these issues, gTLDs and ccTLDs are affected in exactly
> the same way and therefore, should be treated the same way.

  Well in that you have yet to provide a convincing or even a reasonable
argument to support this conclusion, it is obvious that it is therefore
invalid.

>  I understand
> that there are may ccTLDs that do not believe that there are any global
> policy issues.  We do not believe that to be the case.  If

  We?  Who is "We"?  Do  you have a mouse in your pocket?  >;)

>
>
> Yes, for most of the other issues, we will look towards our own local
> community for input and you are correct, it is that local aspect that makes
> .us different than a gTLD like .biz.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:11 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>
> Chuck,
>
> You are absolutely correct to say that Registries benefit
> from the input of others, business, lawyers, academic sector,
> telcos, ISP and others.
> We have been doing it at AFNIC for years, in French.
>
> The ccTLD registries are serving over 190 sovereign countries,
> and 50 territories, the whole planet, their primary duty is
> to serve their local internet communities, to be with their users
> every day, operate in their legal systems, and speak their languages.
>
> I do not understand what you mean by "they might want to avoid
> [constituencies]" - do you think the same constituency structure should
> be imposed on every ccTLD ? From practical point of view do you
> suggest each ccTLD should work in English ?
>
> I believe we are in the heart of rich difference between ccTLD and gTLD.
> The ccTLD space is local. The gTLD space is extra-judiciary, it is
> not connected to any country. Therefore the ICANN structure which
> is being providing a global place, for global Internet community.
> Take an example, the Neustar has a good perception of difference
> - their focus is US, when they operate .us (with all conditions
> on name servers which must be in the US etc). But when they operate
> .biz (as VeriSign which operates .com/.net) they think international.
> On the www.nic.biz site the customers have a choice of languages,
> Chinese, French, German, Korean, Japanese, Spanish, the UDRP service
> and a neutral green background, while on the www.nic.us there is
> an US flag up front.
>
> Amicalement,
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> --
>
> > It's never been clear why the ccTLD registries couldn't "benefit" from the
> > input of other consituencies.  ccTLD TLDs involve business, IP,
> > noncommerical, and ISP users, so, if the constituency model is to be
> > continued, why wouldn't the ccSO have similar constituencies?  I can
> > understand why they might want to avoid that, but it is not because those
> > constituences are not impacted by ccTLD issues.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 8:50 PM
> > > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter,
> > >
> > > I appreciate your sensitivity to user concerns and note that
> > > you have asked,
> > > "Why shouldn't the structure require the registries and
> > > registrars to sit
> > > around the table with their user community?"
> > >
> > > In light of this question, can you identify the functional
> > > mechanism by which
> > > relevant user community input will be respected within the
> > > proposed ccSO?
> > > Perhaps that which is proposed within your own SO can offer
> > > some structural
> > > guidance to the GNSO...
> > >
> > > best regards,
> > > Danny
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:10:57 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Jeff and all assembly members,

Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Let me add another point.  Nobody is stating that the gTLDs should not have
> to sit down at the table with the user constituencies.  In fact, I believe
> that we should be required to do so for all of the reasons that Chuck has
> explained.
>
> I think that everyone can recognize the difference between being required to
> sit down at the table with the users and being required to adopt any policy
> that the users come up with regardless of whether such policy is technically
> feasible or whether such solution is practicable from a financial
> perspective.

  Of course.  However it is necessary, prudent and in the best interests
of the registries, registrars, and the stakeholders/users that the very
same stakeholder/users, registrants or not, have a voice and a vote
on any and all policies being considered by ICANN or any registry/registrar
that may effect them.

>
>
> The concept of a division between users and providers is NOT a new concept.
> In fact, it was first introduced (officially) in the At-large Working Group
> which many in the GA supported highly (although it was not adopted).
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 8:30 AM
> To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>
> It's never been clear why the ccTLD registries couldn't "benefit" from the
> input of other consituencies.  ccTLD TLDs involve business, IP,
> noncommerical, and ISP users, so, if the constituency model is to be
> continued, why wouldn't the ccSO have similar constituencies?  I can
> understand why they might want to avoid that, but it is not because those
> constituences are not impacted by ccTLD issues.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 8:50 PM
> > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> >
> >
> > Peter,
> >
> > I appreciate your sensitivity to user concerns and note that
> > you have asked,
> > "Why shouldn't the structure require the registries and
> > registrars to sit
> > around the table with their user community?"
> >
> > In light of this question, can you identify the functional
> > mechanism by which
> > relevant user community input will be respected within the
> > proposed ccSO?
> > Perhaps that which is proposed within your own SO can offer
> > some structural
> > guidance to the GNSO...
> >
> > best regards,
> > Danny
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 17:18:19 -0400
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] regulating content

Danny,

To date, other than receiving spam to the .kids.us policy e-mail box, there
has not been any substantive comments received by NeuStar. That being said,
in the event that NeuStar receives any substantive comments regarding the
.kids.us policy paper, we will post those comments as soon as the comment
period has ended.

Also, I would ask that all future questions regarding .us be addressed on
.us's own public mailing list which can be accessed at:
http://lists.neustar.biz/mailman/listinfo.cgi/policy-forum.

Thanks.  

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 1:08 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] regulating content

Dear Jeff,

I note that you have extended the comment period on your first discussion
draft of content guidelines and requirements for the kids.us namespace
posted
at http://www.neustar.us/kids/kidsus_content_policy.pdf

A few questions:

1.  Are the public comments on this draft posted anywhere?
2.  What input have you received from the .us Policy Council on this topic
and where might that input be found?
3.  When did the .us Policy Council last meet?
4.  When is their next meeting scheduled?

Best regards,
Danny

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 23:39:28 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Appendix G

What about the type of service mentioned in the same appendix:

"4. Maximum Fee for Enhanced Whois Service

During the Term of the Registry Agreement NeuLevel may introduce extended
capabilities to its Whois service, as described in Appendix O to the
Registry Agreement. These extended service capabilities shall be made
available on a subscription fee basis as follows:

Yearly Subscription Fee Rate To be negotiated with
ICANN
One Time Usage Fee..."

Are these fees negotiated by now? How much are they? Is this what we now
see at www.whobiz.biz?

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:44:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Hello,

- --- Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
>   We?  Who is "We"?  Do  you have a mouse in your pocket?  >;)

haha Coming from someone who regularly uses 'we' for his fictitious
"INEGroup", that has to be the funniest line of the day.

Where are the 127K members of INEGroup? Do bed bugs count? :)

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 00:19:40 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: Appendix G

Just a 'thank you', which also goes to the GA, so that all who are still
here can read your reply.

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, at 17:52 [=GMT-0400], Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> I am posting to you only because I think if I post to the ga list, I will
> have exceeded my limit.  Feel free to forward to the list if you wish.
>
> Yes, that is the WhoBiz service.  They were negotiated and agreed to.  An
> amendment was executed by ICANN and NeuLevel several months ago when the
> service was introduced.  I have been meaning to ask ICANN to post that
> amendment.  Thanks for the reminder, I will call them and see what I can do.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:39 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Appendix G
>
>
> What about the type of service mentioned in the same appendix:
>
> "4. Maximum Fee for Enhanced Whois Service
>
> During the Term of the Registry Agreement NeuLevel may introduce extended
> capabilities to its Whois service, as described in Appendix O to the
> Registry Agreement. These extended service capabilities shall be made
> available on a subscription fee basis as follows:
>
> Yearly Subscription Fee Rate To be negotiated with
> ICANN
> One Time Usage Fee..."
>
> Are these fees negotiated by now? How much are they? Is this what we now
> see at www.whobiz.biz?
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:49:12 -0400
From: Leah G <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: User input in the ccSO (was Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

On Monday 30 September 2002 05:46 am, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> Anyway, since there are policies that would
> benefit from central coordination - just to name one, WHOIS uniformity
> across the ccTLDs - there must be a way for the ccSO to develop such
> policies at a central level, with the input of the users too. This is why
> we (as the ALAC Advisory Group) suggested that there should be an At Large
> liaison to the ccSO Council. I would strongly suggest, for example, that
> when the ccSO sets up working groups it should include a representative of
> the ALAC in them. Would you consider this?

How can you reconcile a central level with regards to policy for cctld's when 
the point has been made over and over again that each cctld falls under the 
laws and conventions of its own country?  Once more, if a country has laws 
that prohibit a public whois, how can a central policy that mandates a public 
whois be reconciled?  Answer:  it cannot.  cctlds have to be able to 
determine policies for themselves, only governed by what their indiividual 
countries alllow.

IMO, if there is to be any cooperation by the cctlds with ICANN, ICANN must 
recognize the autonomy of the cctlds.

Leah

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 19:14:33 -0400
From: Leah Gallegos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

On Monday 30 September 2002 01:03 pm, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
> > Moreover, to the extent that a ccTLD is restricted to a narrow
> > geographical region (e.g., country), I am not suggesting that such a
> > ccTLD would benefit from the same constituency structure as in the
> > current DNSO.  But as you well know, a lot of ccTLD registries are not
> > restricted to their own geographical region; they function essentially
> > like gTLD registries on a global basis.  In those cases, I see little
> > difference between ccTLDs and gTLDs because users expand beyond local
> > boarders and associated policy issues are the pretty much the same.
> >
> >
> > Chuck

Not entirely true, Chuck.  ccTLDs that use registrars and providers other than 
those in their own region still operate under the laws of that 
region/country.  Simply because they have expanded their "sales" is not 
reason enough to treat them as gTLDs governed by ICANN.  

Leah 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 19:16:34 -0400
From: Leah Gallegos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Karen and Don:

In reality, IMO, the bottom line is that ICANN should have little or nothing
to do with dictating how a registry should operate, nor should it have
anything to do with pricing or consumer protection.  The only area where
ICANN should be involved is determination of whether the registry can operate
technically to provide the required service to the community.

As in any other business, the consumer will decide whether he wants to do
business wth a particular company.  If they get
good service for reasonable prices, they will come back.  If not, they will
leave.

I think the only possible exception would be in the case of of the .com
registry since it was handed to a firm by the USG.  That seems to imply some
sort of control or regulation.  However, if there are many (not just four or
five) gtlds available for the public and the one original registry is then
just one of many, there should be little regulation necessary.  They will
sink or swim based on the service they provide.  Consumer protection is built
into US law.  For companies outside the US, there are laws governing their
actions as well, and it is up to the consumer to learn what protections they
might have with those companies in those countries.

With the advent of "registrars" mandated by ICANN, all we have is a vertical
monopoly in one tld - .com, which has now been extended for who knows how
long.  So be it.  However, with other registries, there are different rules,
different criteria and different pricing and different business models.

Let the market decide. Let ICANN stay out of dictating business and just
introduce a gazillion tlds for the public to choose from.  Even though most
people on this list don't like it, there are thousands of tlds available now.
It hasn't hurt servers one bit.  It works just fine.  Include all of them in
all the roots and just watch people enjoy choice.

Leah

On Monday 30 September 2002 10:02 am, Karen Elizaga wrote:
> Dear Don,
>
> The current form of the registry agreements that the gTLD registries are
> subject to in the current ICANN forum is not an "inequitable deal."  As you
> might imagine, no business could have created a justification for signing a
> deal which gives another party complete control over what we are obligated
> to do.  In fact, the current form provides the gTLD registries with certain
> protections from exactly that - we are only required to adopt policies that
> have been devised based on "consensus" among Internet stakeholders in the
> ICANN process.  As Internet stakeholders under the current structure, we
> theoretically have a say in these policies and therefore have not given up
> total control over what we are obligated to do.
>
> As this restructuring process continues to evolve, we believe that the
> distinction between users and providers within the GNSO is of paramount
> importance to maintain the protection that was contemplated in the registry
> agreements.  This protection will be made obsolete if the GNSO composition,
> where contracting parties are outnumbered by user groups, results in
> consensus being determined by the majority within that GNSO structure -
> where the user groups would be able to simply dictate "consensus"
> notwithstanding the fact that the contracting parties are the ones who are
> materially affected in implementing new policies.
>
> Thus, your interpretation of the deals struck between any of the registries
> and ICANN is not entirely accurate.  They were not bad deals at their
> execution; rather, the deals will have devolved by virtue of external
> forces outside of our control.
>
> Regards.
> KE
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Brown [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 30 September 2002 01:40
> To: [email-masked]; Peter Dengate Thrush
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>
>
> Jeff,
>
> I completely understand your dilemma of having potentially "moving
> target" contractual obligations.
>
> Frankly, it's not very good business to sign a contract which gives
> the other party control over what you are obligated to do, from time
> to time and at their sole discretion, as well as the ability to
> dictate what you can charge for doing it. Conceivably, you could find
> yourself with an eroded margin and even operating at a loss in a worse
> case scenario. I'd say that is a very big business risk.
>
> Understanding the risk, as no doubt you do from your post below, what
> was the motivation to sign such an inequitable deal? Was it an
> abundance of faith at the time, dollar signs which blurred the vision
> or something else which I can't imagine right now?  Certainly, no one
> duressed a signature, I'm sure.  At least, there is no complaint about
> that below.
>
> Having a contract is, indeed, very different.  It gives contractual
> rights and imposes obligations.
>
> I'd bet that most people in the GA wished that the GA had a contract
> for those reasons, as well. I'd bet that most would, in fact, welcome
> it, right now.
>
> ICANN's consensus building process is a joke, in light of WLS. The
> ICANN Board will do whatever they want and the contract holders, like
> you, certainly seem to have much more power than the grass root domain
> name holders - ala GA, et al. They completely ignored the top
> recommendation from the NC (task force) and all input from the
> outreach, to approve WLS, regardless. Perhaps, due to the concerns
> express below, Chuck can be available to you for some moonlight
> consulting.
>
> Market forces will dictate contract negotiations with ICANN, just like
> any other firm.  If the deal isn't right, that's a business decision
> to make.  However, signing an inequitable deal is not sufficient
> justification for more representation and control than the grass roots
> domain name holders.  If you make a bad deal, well, shame on you, but
> that's not my fault or anyone elses' fault.  Consequently, it is not
> equitable for us to pay the price for a problem that you created and
> brought upon yourself.
>
> In the final analysis, it's the grass-roots stakeholders who have the
> most to lose, who merit equitable representation and who have been
> denied it. They didn't "knowingly" make a bad or risky deal. If you
> did, well, that's too bad. You can always bow out at the end of the
> contract, though, but the grass roots will still be the grass roots.
> Without them, heck, none of this would matter, anyway.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Sunday, September 29, 2002, 5:05:04 PM, Peter Dengate Thrush
> <[email-masked]> wrote: PDT> comments below
> PDT>   ----- Original Message -----
> PDT>   From: Neuman, Jeff
> PDT>   To: [email-masked]'
> PDT>   Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 10:24 AM
> PDT>   Subject: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>
>
> PDT>   This is from the gTLD Constituency and has been sent to the ERC
> Committee.  I know this should spark some interesting debate.
>
> PDT>   Subject: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>
>
> PDT>   >The Registry Constituency has been a vocal supporter of reform from
> its inception.  In fact, many of the Registries joined in a letter to the
> Department of Commerce expressing our support for PDT> the reform efforts.
> One of the main reasons that we supported ICANN reform from the beginning
> was because of the perceived inefficiencies of the current DNSO. The result
> of such inefficiencies PDT> has led those parties that have contracts with
> ICANN (namely, the gTLD Registries and gTLD Registrars) to become
> disenfranchised with the current policy development process.
>
> PDT>   Jeff - there's some irony in this. Its not the inefficiency of the
> DNSO which you were objecting to, it seems, buts its efficiency in
> "disenfranchising" you and the registrars.
>
> PDT>   >Too often, political games have been played to overshadow the
> voices of the Registries and the Registrars in the current process, even
> though it is recognized that most, if not all, of the PDT> proposed
> policies affect the contracted parties in a way that is much different than
> those parties that are not under contract with ICANN. Unfortunately, as the
> ERC process has evolved, the PDT> inefficiencies of the current DNSO appear
> to be re-emerging.
>
> PDT>   Again, you describe a political result you don't like as an
> "inefficiency".
>
> PDT>   >As the ERC properly realized, not all stakeholders are equally
> affected.
>
> PDT>   >The registrars and registries are contractually bound to comply
> with any ICANN consensus policies.  New or changed policies can have a
> significant financial impact on their operations.  We PDT> believe that the
> protection of registrar and registry rights as contracting parties within
> the proposed GNSO is an important and essential safeguard.
>
> PDT>   Here is where your argument becomes more difficult for me to follow.
> You seem to be elevating the contract between you/registrars and ICANN to a
> different level of political importance than PDT> the contract beteen a
> registrant and a registrar. Why?
>
> PDT>   Given that all the funding flows from registrants to registrars,
> that the conditions of end use, and that much of the ICANN policy
> discussion is about the impact on users of names and address PDT>
> procedures, why isn't the view of the vast numbers of registrants
> significantly more important than the views of the providers??
>
> PDT>   Why shoudn't the g registries be obliged to adopt at least a little
> of the ethos (which we regard as contractually binding via RFC 1591, as
> well as socially appropriate) binding the cc PDT> registries, that the
> registry has to serve the community its provided to serve? Why shouldn't
> the structure require the registries and registrars to sit around the table
> with their user PDT> community?
>
> PDT>   If the conditions of the user community result in a business which
> is unprofitable, or unsuited, those entities running them can take a
> busines decision to leave that business. If, on the PDT> other hand, the
> conditions imposed by registries and registrars are unsuitable for users,
> where can they go?
>
> PDT>   My personal preference would be to ensure that users rights should
> be more carefully protected that those of registries and registrars,
> precisely because they are typically small, individual, PDT> disparate and
> the economic effect per person makes any issue uneconomic to fight. OTOH
> registries and registrars have well-known economic and political
> advantages.
>
> PDT>   You blur this issue to speak of "contracting parties" while ignoring
> the end user contracts.
>
> PDT>   There is a need to balance the undoubted importance of successful
> and innovative registries and registrars, competing in an economic battle
> for business, with the needs of users.  Considerable PDT> clarity of
> thinking is need to ensure all interests are kept in balance.
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1448
*************************