Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

[Don Brown <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>]

Karen,

The platform of the e-mail which I answered, proclaimed the inequity
of the contract. It was not a case of my "inaccurate understanding" of
the actual contract. In contrast, my response was based upon the
essence of what the writer professed the contract to be and my own
common horse-sense and business sense.

Regardless, however, even after digesting your response, below, my
response continues to be the same. Market forces will dictate ICANN's
ability to negotiate. As for the contracting party, you can make an
informed business decision. Nothing prevents that and the grass-roots
users are not responsible for what you may choose to do or not choose
to do.  That is entirely your responsibility as the contracting party.

Just because the contract offered to you is not Utopia, doesn't give
you license to have more say in anything.  Actually, it is an excuse
and not a reason, anyway.

Just like in any business, it is the ultimate consumer who rules, one
way or another. Domain name registrations are not a departure into the
Alice in Wonderland world. It is as real as any other commodity. If
the grass roots didn't know that, there would be no debate.

The way it is - is frankly - the way it is.  No amount of dialog will
change reality.

Thanks,


Monday, September 30, 2002, 9:02:22 AM, Karen Elizaga <karen@elizaga.name> wrote:
KE> Dear Don,

KE> 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
KE> 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
KE> 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
KE> 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.

KE> 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
KE> 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
KE> 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
KE> are materially affected in implementing new policies.  

KE> 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
KE> by virtue of external forces outside of our control.

KE> Regards.
KE> KE

KE> -----Original Message-----
KE> From: Don Brown [mailto:donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net]
KE> Sent: 30 September 2002 01:40
KE> To: owner-ga@dnso.org; Peter Dengate Thrush
KE> Cc: ga@dnso.org
KE> Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency


KE> Jeff,

KE> I completely understand your dilemma of having potentially "moving
KE> target" contractual obligations.

KE> Frankly, it's not very good business to sign a contract which gives
KE> the other party control over what you are obligated to do, from time
KE> to time and at their sole discretion, as well as the ability to
KE> dictate what you can charge for doing it. Conceivably, you could find
KE> yourself with an eroded margin and even operating at a loss in a worse
KE> case scenario. I'd say that is a very big business risk.

KE> Understanding the risk, as no doubt you do from your post below, what
KE> was the motivation to sign such an inequitable deal? Was it an
KE> abundance of faith at the time, dollar signs which blurred the vision
KE> or something else which I can't imagine right now?  Certainly, no one
KE> duressed a signature, I'm sure.  At least, there is no complaint about
KE> that below.

KE> Having a contract is, indeed, very different.  It gives contractual
KE> rights and imposes obligations.

KE> I'd bet that most people in the GA wished that the GA had a contract
KE> for those reasons, as well. I'd bet that most would, in fact, welcome
KE> it, right now.

KE> ICANN's consensus building process is a joke, in light of WLS. The
KE> ICANN Board will do whatever they want and the contract holders, like
KE> you, certainly seem to have much more power than the grass root domain
KE> name holders - ala GA, et al. They completely ignored the top
KE> recommendation from the NC (task force) and all input from the
KE> outreach, to approve WLS, regardless. Perhaps, due to the concerns
KE> express below, Chuck can be available to you for some moonlight
KE> consulting.

KE> Market forces will dictate contract negotiations with ICANN, just like
KE> any other firm.  If the deal isn't right, that's a business decision
KE> to make.  However, signing an inequitable deal is not sufficient
KE> justification for more representation and control than the grass roots
KE> domain name holders.  If you make a bad deal, well, shame on you, but
KE> that's not my fault or anyone elses' fault.  Consequently, it is not
KE> equitable for us to pay the price for a problem that you created and
KE> brought upon yourself.

KE> In the final analysis, it's the grass-roots stakeholders who have the
KE> most to lose, who merit equitable representation and who have been
KE> denied it. They didn't "knowingly" make a bad or risky deal. If you
KE> did, well, that's too bad. You can always bow out at the end of the
KE> contract, though, but the grass roots will still be the grass roots.
KE> Without them, heck, none of this would matter, anyway.

KE> Thanks,


KE> Sunday, September 29, 2002, 5:05:04 PM, Peter Dengate Thrush <barrister@chambers.gen.nz> wrote:
PDT>> comments below
PDT>>   ----- Original Message ----- 
PDT>>   From: Neuman, Jeff 
PDT>>   To: 'ga@dnso.org' 
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.



PDT>>   regards




KE> ----
KE> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
KE> donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
KE> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
KE> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
KE> ----

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



KE> Information contained herein is Global Name Registry Proprietary Information and is made available to you because of your interest in our company.    This information is submitted in confidence
KE> and its disclosure to you is not intended to constitute public disclosure or authorization for disclosure to other parties.
KE> *****************
KE> What's your .name?
KE> Get one at www.name
KE> *****************




----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
----

--
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