[registrars] Fw: [council] GA position on Verisign contract

["Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

Attached fyi is a statement from the GA on the proposed Verising/ICANN
contract.
erica
>
> After thorough discussion, the GA has shown rough consensus in favour to
> option A, i.e. to keep the current contract.
>
> A straw poll conducted between the 15 and 20 March has given the following
> results:
> - 24 in favour of the current contract (option A)
> - 2 in favour of the new contract (option B)
> - 1 neither of the above
>
> The reasons for the choice, as expressed by some participants, are mainly:
>
> 1) "horizontal" separation between Registrar and Registry, foreseen in
> option A, is perceived as a better deal than "vertical" separation among
> TLDs, and a better safeguard against a monopolistic position.
>
> 2) The switchover to option B is perceived as a change in policy, done
> without previous consultation of the DNSO (whose mission is to provide
> recommandations on policy), and moreover within very strict deadlines,
> absolutely inappropriate to evaluate in depth the implications of such
> change. For instance, some of the details of the new proposal, like some
> attachments, are still unknown at time of writing. Also, this change in
> policy is considered irreversible.
>
> 3) The financial advantages for the Internet community of option B are not
> balancing off the drawbacks above, as it is understood that the investment
> will be done by VeriSign at its discretion, based on a commercial logic
that
> is perfectly legitimate but out of the control of the Internet community.
> The benefits for the Internet community are therefore not identifiable at
> this point in time, and it may be even assumed that other competing
> operators might invest comparable amounts of money in the infrastructure
as
> well, if granted similar contracts by ICANN.
>
> 4) The other claimed advantage of option B, i.e. a different management of
> .org, is minimal in value if of any value at all, because years of
practice
> of sale of names without enforcement of the original charter have
> irreversibly altered the content of .org
>
> Moreover, should a charter be enforced by ICANN and/or agreed with the
.org
> registry (and this regardless on whether the registry changes owner, i.e.
> independently from option A or B being chosen), the GA is opposed to any
> action to cancel existing registrations. Any action of this type would be
> contrary to the legitimate interest of bona-fide owners of .org names.
>
> Roberto Gaetano
> GA Chairman
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
>