[ga] Re: [GTLD Registries List] gTLD Comments on .org (PLEASE POST ON NC LIST)

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Jeff,
We would certainly prefer that the text spells out that VRSN and ICANN 
should not take advantage from the .org divestiture. When you divest it is 
not to take back. When you foster competition it is not to compete with 
yourself to your own benefit.

The divestiture should come with M$ 5 from Verisign to the new operator and 
with the transfer of the renewals fees for the 10 years to come that 
Verisign has collected as part of it s normal business. We certainly 
understand it would help the ICANN to keep a part of that amount 
and  Verisign not to pay the other part. Would that be fair to the other 
gTLDs? we may doubt it. Would that be innovative for .org? we may doubt it. 
Would that be good business administration? we may doubt it.

We may regret that the final text uses "provider" instead of "actor" as 
adopted at the NonCom. We may also regret that you miscontrue this as a 
position against IBM, BT, ATT who are parts of the BC. Actually for that 
very reason we may be surprised you could (Marilyn fighting the interests 
of AT&T???). Actually this list of yours makes plain that you did not quote 
the actual names you were concerned about.

The concern we may all share is that .org would look divested as part of 
the Plan B negotiation. There would be calls for an anti-trust 
investigation/action. This would be detrimental to the .org registrants and 
to the Global Internet Community, and to Verisign and to the ICANN 
themselves. Every other proposition is certainly worth to consider. 
Including the registration by the IANA of a few hundreds other TLDs in 
compliance with the RFC 920 which documented .org, lowering the importance 
of that divestiture.

Jefsey

PS. Jeff, may I ask you a stupid question? How does that come you belong to 
the gTLD constituency? Is not your ".biz" a chartered/specialized TLD for 
business? Or did you buy Lea's true ".biz" which has not such a limitation? 
Or would that mean that Joe Sims/Louis Touton are iinterested in the 
concept of sponsored TLDs only for ".org"?  And why one TLD is at the BC?


On 20:48 01/02/02, Neuman, Jeff said:


>The following are the public comments of the gTLD constituency (the
>"Constituency" or "we") on the final report of the Task Force on the
>divestiture of .org which was approved by the Names Council as a consensus
>policy recommendation to the ICANN Board. We have no comments on the Final
>Report itself that can be meaningfully expressed in a public comment,
>however, we note that certain opinions have been voiced in the discussion of
>the latest drafts and subsequent to the Final Report's issuance. The
>Constituency is so concerned by these statements, that we are submitting the
>following comments to establish our position on the same.
>
>We are particularly concerned by the view expressed by the Business
>Constituency and Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency that the
>"market position of existing dominant providers are not entrenched nor
>enhanced through participation in, taking an interest in, or contracting to
>deliver critical services to, the new .org management organization."
>
>Any such restriction or prohibition on the participation, interest or
>contracting ability of certain "dominant" providers raises significant
>concerns.  Defining "dominant" providers, actors or service providers is not
>easily accomplished, and has not been done.  As a result, existing
>registrars, registries, ISPs (i.e. AT&T, British Telecom, IBM, etc.) could
>be arbitrarily excluded from providing contract services.
>
>Such a prohibition is also fundamentally anti-competitive and may ultimately
>add to the cost of services provided by the registry.  By restricting the
>ability of the .org registry to choose its contractors or service providers
>and creating an artificial exclusion of certain market players, there will
>be less competition for services, and lower costs to the registry may well
>be forgone if the excluded parties are indeed offering the most competitive
>prices.  Moreover, the limitation may also exclude provision of services by
>the most efficient and reliable parties, thereby hindering the performance
>of the .org registry.
>
>Forcing the registry to pay higher prices for whatever they procure results
>in a higher cost structure for effected registries and this higher cost
>structure is eventually passed along to registrants.  ICANN intervention
>into the ability of the .org registry to sub-contract or otherwise work
>with, seek participation from "dominant players" is not only outside of the
>scope of ICANN's mandate and mission, it also imposes a tax on registrants
>and eventually makes the registration service less interesting in the
>market.
>
>For each of the foregoing reasons, the Constituency strongly objects to the
>view that there be any restriction upon the .org
>registry's ability to freely seek participation or contracting services from
>any players or actors that it deems capable of
>ensuring the secure and reliable operation of the domain.
>
>
>Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
>Chair, gTLD Registry Constituency
>e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@NeuLevel.biz
>
>
>
>---------
>Participants on the gTLD Registry Constituency public mailing list are 
>requested to not cross-post messages.

--
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