[registrars] Constituency Update

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

Hello All:

Yesterday the constituency had a productive meeting. Tim Denton will be
posting the minutes shortly.  Listed below is the agenda of issues that we
discussed:

Introduction / roll-call
Funding and Membership update
ICANN reform - Discussion of Blueprint
Update from ICANN on the VRSN audit
Extensive discussion on the transfer and delete taskforces
Brief update on Escrow initiative from Dan
Update from Bruce Tonkin on the 30 day delete safety net, and VRSN Registry
auto-renewal payment terms
Update from Karen Elizaga on .NAME on proposed modifications of Whois policy
and technical specs.
Update from .aero on increased authorization of ICANN accredited registrars
Brief update from IATA on requesting registrar support on advancing the
adoption of additional sponsored TLDs
Brief update from Seigfried on .EU

The two issues in which the constituency drafted/took positions were in
connection with a statement on ICANN reform and in connection with Names
Council WLS(deletes) Task Force. Tim should have sent by now a ballot on the
approval/disapproval of the Task Force report to those registrars not in
attendance yesterday. One qualification that needs to be made in connection
with this report, is that as a constituency for anti-trust reasons we will
not discuss/approve a proposal that discusses pricing. I spoke with Ross
after the meeting and he was in agreement that price should not be a
discussion point in the Task Force report for legal reasons as discussed in
Dulles earlier this year.

The Names Council meets as 2 PM local time please make sure that you provide
this information to Tim ASAP.

The second issue that we discussed was a registrar position statement on
ICANN reform. Below is a summary of the notes that were taken during the
meeting. VeriSign has already objected to certain aspects although they have
not informed us of which particular aspects. This statement is intended to
be read during the meeting on Thursday when I give an update of the
Registrar Constituency events of yesterday. It was agreed that the statement
would have four parts: supportive introduction; positive aspects of the
Blueprint on reform, funding concerns about the blueprint for reform, and
issues that ICANN may have not fully considered in the current blueprint.
Listed below is a draft that will be accepted unless there are any
objections.

RESTRUCTURING STATEMENT

The ICANN Registrar Constituency has provided unwavering support of ICANN
reform and its efforts to foster and maintain competition in the domain name
marketplace. Our most recent support can be seen by the pending approval of
the 2002-2003 budget which currently contains a 30% increase in registrar
contributions from last year, specifically an increase from 8 per domain
name year to 11 cents.

The registrars believe that the latest document entitled a blueprint for
reform is an additional step in the right direction to ensure that ICANN is
provided the necessary funding and staff to ensure its stable operations.
The registrars also support the concept of a Nominating Committee to better
represent the global Internet stakeholders. The registrars also believe that
ICANN has taken constructive steps to streamline and resolve complex policy
issues through a process that relies upon increased outreach and
documentation.

However, Registrars would like some additional clarification about the
proposed .25 per domain name fee referenced in the blueprint document which
represents an almost 300% increase from the current .08 per domain name.
Specifically, is the proposed fee to be borne solely by ICANN accredited
registrars in connection with gTLD registrations, and will there be an grand
fathering provision prior to the implementation of this new licensing fee.

One point that the registrars believes the committee for evolution and
reform must address is the special contractual relationship that registrars
and registries have with ICANN and the need for a mechanism to
resolve/clarify existing contractual rights, outside of the current policy
framework which all issues nevertheless seem to pass through. It is the
registrars' perception that the organization should grant a higher status to
contracting parties than it now does, and, under the authority of the ICANN
Board of Directors, devise a means for adjudicating contract interpretations
and enforcement. Much thinking needs to be done about how this adjudication
can be carried out, and some of our members will have  contributions to make
in that regard. Nevertheless, rapid, impartial, and effective contract
interpretation and enforcement is a vital interest of all contracting
parties, and it is in this regard that the current proposals are weakest.

Additional comments:

The registry constituency approached the registrar constituency about
creating a joint supporting organization. Most registrars believe that this
was not a viable solution, and that we could achieve our goals through other
means. However, we believe there may be a common ground. Specifically, in
creating a provider group within the GNSO that would be comprised
exclusively of ICANN contracting parties, i.e. registrars and registries.
This would require the re-location of the ISP to the user group of the GNSO.