Re: [ga] Draft Resolution

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello DPF,

Add my signature to this text.  I agree 100% with every word.

Friday, March 16, 2001, 9:20:07 PM, DPF wrote:

> It is obvious from both the quantitative and qualitative posts that
> there is much more support for the status quo agreement over the
> proposed changes.  The various polls being run will give us some idea
> of the numbers - I would like to focus on getting a resolution which
> as many people as possible can agree to which details why we oppose
> the proposed changes.

> My draft is below.  It is just my draft and maximum feedback is
> encouraged.  Hopefully we can sort the wording out within 3 days or so
> and then see how many people we can sign up to support it.  If we get
> a comprehensive resolution some constituency reps may even want to use
> it within their constituencies (if they agree with basic thrust).

> DRAFT RESOLUTION

> That the General Assembly of the DNSO of ICANN opposes ICANN
> rescinding the current TLD registry contract with Verisign in favour
> of the proposed new contract.

> The GA opposes the proposed changes because we believe they will not
> benefit the Internet Community as a whole, as specified in Article 4
> of the ICANN Articles of Association.

> Specifically we believe the proposed changes overall significantly
> increase the risk of monopolistic behaviour and reduce competition.
> The combination of allowing Verisign to both keep its registrar
> business and also gain a presumptive right to *.com would put in place
> considerable anti competitive incentives.  

> The proposed changes are also essentially ir-reversible.  

> We believe there is no consensus in the Internet community for these
> changes, and in fact on the contrary there is a considerable consensus
> against the proposed changes being rushed through in such a short
> time-frame.

> If the ICANN Board was to agree to such dramatic changes against the
> wishes of the DNSO Names Council and constituencies there would be
> great damage done not just to competition within the DNS but more
> fundamentally to ICANN itself.  The principle of consensus based
> decision making which so many hold dear would be shattered possibly
> ir-redeemably.

> Specific concerns the general assembly has regarding the proposed
> contract are:


> - The granting of a presumptive right to be the *.com registry to
> Verisign.  By lowering the necessary performance standard to retain
> *.com *which makes up 65% of all domain names in the world), this
> removes a huge pressure on the registry to keep prices as low as
> possible and to have the best possible relationship with Registrars
> - Allowing Verisign to retain its registrar business puts in place
> perverse anti-competitive incentives regardless of organisational
> firewalls. 
> - Verisign would be in a position where it could purchase other
> Registrars thus once again gaining over 50% or even 75% of the
> registrar market in *.com, as well as the registry.
> - The possibility of a change to the status of *.org registration
> - Granting the ability to Verisign to increase registry prices with
> only 30 days notice
> - The ambiguity over what the $200 million to be invested in registry
> development would actually be, and the lack of any clear process to
> audit this.  
> - The non-transparent process used to negotiate these agreements which
> are then presented as not negotiable to the ICANN Board and DNSO
> - The detrimental effects on registrars who have become registrars and
> invested money on the basis of the existing contract (which mandates
> the Verisign registry must divest the registrar business)
> - The unfair advantage the Verisign Registrar would gain by being able
> to sell domains with a zero wholesale cost, thus potentially forcing
> out many smaller competitors
> - The total lack of outside analysis on whether the proposed changes
> will be beneficial to the Internet community

> The General Assembly recognises that parts of the proposed new
> contracts would bring benefits to the Internet community.  However the
> GA believes that these benefits are minor compared to the
> ir-reversible and major drawbacks of the contracts, thus our strong
> recommendation is to remain with the existing contract.


> DPF
> --
> david@farrar.com
> ICQ 29964527
> --
> 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



-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com


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