Re: [ga] Draft Resolution

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear DPF,
one of the point I want to add is that R&D in this domain
would be financed by the Internet Community (at least 65%
of the DNs holders would contribute) while this R&D would
benefit to VeriSign either in aggregating new developments
with VeriSign oriented solutions or through licensing of the
resulting products.

Due to the dominant position of VeriSign on this market,
due to the importance of the DNS services on the world
economy, the impact of this contract will not be negligible
on the overall stability and development of the Internet and
of world economy. As such we are facing matters most
probably subject to national anti-Trust laws and Government
interests.

1. this should lead to an investigation by Congress. What
     Leah Gallagos has been able to obtain to protect the
     interests of ARNI against iCANN take over of her ".biz"
     5,000 DNs business should be also possible when
     considering the management of 15.000.000 DNs.

     I do not know who is to call for such an investigation, but
     I know it is the DNSO duty to warn the BoD about the
     need to permit such an investigation before taking any
     decision. Such an investigation has already been called
     upon in Australia. My feeling, reading the Judge who
     stroke it out, is that the VeriSign project, the letter from
     Stratton Sclavos to Vint Cerf, the current comments etc..
     might make him changing his mind since he perfectly
     understood the case.


2. this should lead to a review by the GAC Members. Such
     a review should not only be carried by the GAC Members
     considering the best interest of their own citizens, but
     also considering the overall interest of developing
     countries not participating yet to the GAC. This because
     the agreement consider the .org as an element of the
     negotiation in their interest and because the impact on
     their future is most probably real.

     As such I suggest the creation of an NGO accepted by
     the UN to seek the ".org" management in case the Plan
     B is accepted and its founders to act as trustees in this
     negotiation for the interest of the Developing Countries.

     I consider that the DNSO is a body to support the BoD
     but also all the other parts of the iCANN. As per the bylaws
     we should circulate our concerns among these groups,
     and we should certainly send a documented motion to call
     upon the attention of the GAC members.

     Such a motion should not take any position in favor of
     one of the solutions by to clarify what is at stake. As Marilyn
     Cade underlined it, most of the Constituencies of the DNSO
     share the same problem of understanding what the contract
     means. The Registrars have made an excellent work, but
     from their own perspective and they proposed solutions. We
     could use their letter as a framework to write a more general,
     less directive letter to the attention of the BoD, GAC, the
     Congress and Senate and Constituencies.

     This document would be different from your proposition which
     is a motion giving the position of the GA. BTW I fully support
     your text provided you add the practical possibility left to
     Congress hearings and GAC review and call for an anti-Trust
     investigation before it being signed.

3. I feel that at this stage we can also call for the BoD to
     investigate and take actions concerning the negotiation by
     the Staff of such a matter without reporting nor seeking advise
     in months to/from the concerned iCANN parties (BoD, SOs,
     GAC, SSRAC).

Thank you for the work done. I fully support the remarks by Kendall.
Jefsey



O 06:20 17/03/01, DPF said:
>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

--
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