<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] Transfers and the Policy-Development Process
- To: ga@dnso.org
- Subject: [ga] Transfers and the Policy-Development Process
- From: DannyYounger@cs.com
- Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 16:04:15 EDT
- CC: apisan@servidor.unam.mx, mcade@att.com, grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz, Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr, rjs@lojo.co.nz, tony.ar.holmes@bt.com, mcf@uwm.edu, ross@tucows.com, synthesis@videotron.ca, james.love@cptech.org, faia@amauta.rcp.net.pe, Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us, crusso@verisign.com, marty@schwimmerlegal.com, dsafran@nixonpeabody.com, lynn@icann.org
- Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org
I have to ask: Why can't the DNSO arrive at policy recommendations in a
timely manner? What is it about the process that has gone so awry that it
takes a year or longer just to arrive at a recommendation? Do participants
in the process even understand the nature of policy development, their own
role, and the roles of others in bringing an effort to fruition?
I recently had occasion to review the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a piece
of legislation that should be quite familiar to the Chair of the Transfers
Task Force (in that she also functions as a paid lobbyist for AT&T), as there
are undeniably clear parallels between domain name portability issues
(transfers) and telephone number portability issues. This is what I was able
to discern:
Congress recognized that to increase competition in the local telephone
market service, certain barriers to competition needed to be eliminated. One
of the major barriers was the inability of customers to switch from one
telephone company to another and still keep the same number. It was realized
that customers would be hesitant to switch to new telephone service providers
if they were unable to keep their existing telephone numbers. Congress
therefore directed local telephone companies to offer "telephone number
portability" in accordance with requirements prescribed by the FCC.
How was the initial policy development process handled?
1. The issue was first discussed within the industry. The industry did not
succeed in its own self-regulatory efforts and this led to the "slamming
wars" (a phenomenon now manifest as well in the domain name industry).
2. The public became involved (generating a slew of hate mail and complaints
similar to that received on the ICANN Public Forums and on the GA list).
3. Legislators took notice and discussed the matter within their chambers
(comparable to NC members discussing the issue within the Council).
4. A legislative committee was formed to further review the matter and to
draft policy (this equates to the NC launching its transfers task force).
5. The committee prepared a law for consideration by Congress (this
corresponds to a TF Final report) and the Congress, after debate, voted upon
the law and sent it to the President for signature (akin to NC report
ratification that is then sent to the ICANN Board for action).
But what did the actual policy (law) on portability look like? It was no
more than this:
"Each local exchange carrier has the following duties: NUMBER PORTABILITY-
The duty to provide, to the extent technically feasible, number
portability in accordance with requirements prescribed by the Commission."
The policy itself was simple. Extremely simple.
The implementation of that policy was left to the appropriate body (the FCC
that would set the requirements). Extending the analogy to ICANN, this would
mean a Resolution that stated:
Resolved [02.XX] that the President and General Counsel are authorized to
conduct negotiations on behalf of ICANN toward appropriate revisions to
agreements between ICANN, registries, and registrars to implement Domain Name
Portability in a manner consistent with recommendations to be devised by a
Technical Steering Group to be convened under the auspices of ICANN Staff.
Just as we had a Technical Steering Group that attended to the "details" of
the Redemption Grace Period, so too should there be such a group to attend to
the implementation details on transfers. This portion of the work-load is
not the responsibility of the DNSO or its Task Force on Transfers -- their
sole job is to determine appropriate policy which may, as in the case of the
above example, be no more than one sentence. It should not take ten months,
or longer, to arrive at such "policy".
The current DNSO Transfers Task Force is attempting to wear too many hats.
It has moved far beyond its mandate to develop policy recommendations and has
entered the arena of implementation details. All that they have been asked
to do is to recommend a "policy", nothing more. The policy could be as
simple as:
In that ICANN as a matter of established policy is committed to reducing
barriers to competition, and in that the inability of registrants to readily
switch registrars constitutes a barrier to such competition, the Names
Council advises the ICANN Board that a binding consensus policy should be
established that states that each registrar has the duty to provide
registrants with facile domain name portability in accordance with
requirements prescribed by the Technical Steering Group assigned to this task
and as approved by the ICANN Board.
Of course, a task force needs to collect input, it needs to arrive at a
determination as to whether circumstances warrant the development of a
policy, but the actual policy-development process itself need not consume an
inordinate amount of time by straying into areas that are not rightfully
within the purview of the policy-recommending organ -- there are indeed other
groups that can be formed to deal with the technical implementation
considerations.
Keep it simple, and get the job done. Focus on policy development, and on
that alone. That is all you were chartered to do.
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|