Re: [registrars] ICANN response to reconsideration requests ofVerisign and Dotster regarding the WLS service

[Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

If ICANN chooses to ignore the intrest of its largest source of funding
and while it may have the disgression to apply new plicy without using a
consensus policy process, unilaterial decision making makes the ITU seem a
more predictable and open formum than the current ICANN process --
especially if ICANN isn't stable enough to have a predictable process.

inshort, ICANN is making its own case for a new and more predictable
venue.

-rick


On Tue, 27 May 2003, Bruce Tonkin wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> I note that there is a special meeting of the ICANN Board on 2 June
> 2003.
> http://www.icann.org/minutes/background-02jun03.htm
>
> On the agenda are two reconsideration requests:
> - a response to Dotsters request surrounding the WLS
> http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc02-5.htm
>
> - a response to Verisign's request surrounding the WLS
> http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc02-6.htm
>
> The logic makes interesting reading - especially the response to Dotster
> regarding the need of ICANN to use consensus to change policy.
>
> Here is a quote:
> "Dotster is correct that the Board's decision to revise VeriSign's
> registry agreements to allow it to offer the WLS through accredited
> registrars was not made according to the procedures stated in subsection
> 4.3.1 of Dotster's registrar accreditation agreement for the creation of
> "consensus policies" as defined there. But nothing in the registrar
> accreditation agreement requires ICANN to make all of its policies
> according to the "consensus policy" mechanism defined in that agreement.
>
> Instead, the contractual role of the "consensus policies" under the
> registrar accreditation agreement is to provide ICANN with an
> alternative to require registrars to implement policies developed
> through the ICANN process. Under subsection 4.1 of the registrar
> accreditation agreement, registrars agree to comply with new or revised
> specifications developed during the term of the agreement, provided they
> are established according to a consensus policy process described in
> subsection 4.3 and on topics prescribed in subsection 4.1.2.2 In
> contrast to Dotster's contention that the registrar accreditation
> agreement requires all of ICANN's policies to be created using the
> procedures stated in subsection 4.3.1, the registrar accreditation
> agreement makes it very clear that the consensus-policy mechanism is
> only one way of defining additional obligations for registrars. See
> subsection 4.2 ("specifications and policies may be established").3
> "
>
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> Melbourne IT
>
>