Re: [wg-c] Separating the Sheep from the Goats

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

Milton Mueller wrote:
>
>Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
>
>> Who objects to/endorses rolling out around a half-dozen gtlds over
>> six months, followed by accelerated rollouts after an evaluation
>> period?
>
>I do, IF.....
>
>> ( C ) We can't answer this question in isolation.
>
>the half-dozen gTLDs are also administered by a half-dozen new registries.
>

I agree this is a legitimate linkage.  For instance, it doesn't do a whole lot of
good if ICANN adds 18 new GTLDs, all administered by NSI :-0

So . . . let me try a second cut:

Three-phase rollout:

(A) Proof of concept phase.  

Anticipated duration: six weeks

Domains to be added: .per, .nom, and at least one other non-commercial
domain.

Registries: Iperdome, CORE, and one other (ideally, a for-profit registry allowing
multiple registrars write access to the zone file).

Qualification Criteria: outside the scope of question one, but should include, at
a minimum, the registry's agreement to "surrender the domain" if it does not
meet objective criteria for customer service, reliability, survivability.  (I.e., for
immediate purposes, let us agree that there will be objective conditions,
stipulated in advance, under which the proof of concept operator will lose the
domain; such operator should be "reimbursed" by the successor in some way,
but not necessarily at once and not necessarily 100%; again, we defer these
details in the interest of sketching the big picture now.)

(B) Controlled RollOut Phase

Anticipated Duration: Six Months

Domains to be added: Those elected by the qualifying registries (not more than
three each in addition to the proof of concept domains), subject to certain
qualifications:

(1) The registry must articulate a plan for preventing it from reaping monopoly
profits during the controlled rollout phase.  These could include (but other
possibilities are invited) (a) CORE-paradigm shared registration with registry
operated on strict cost-recovery regime, (b) Informal tariff-filing under which
compensation of registry/registrar is fixed during the Controlled RollOut Phase.

(2) The TLD must not be one which is the same as or confusingly similar to any
famous trademark, unless the holder of the trademark assents irrevocably to
the delegation of the TLD.

(3) In the event of a conflict over delegation of TLDs (e.g., .web) the TLD will
not be delegated unless the ICANN Board determines that the adverse claims
to the TLD are not bona fide or otherwise without merit.  Note that California
has an expedited method for court review of the determinations of corporate
boards.  There is one legal trick to making this work: ICANN will need to waive,
by amendment to its certificate of incorporation, the right to assert that the
decision to add a TLD to the root falls within its exclusive business judgment. 
This change will make it possible for adverse claimants actually to be heard in
court on the actual merits of their claims to the TLD in question.

(4) All domains delegated prior to the full competition phase are subject to
reallocation and re-award on the basis prevailing during the full competition
phase.

Number of Registries: up to nine.  Qualification of registries to be based on
stable, objective criteria established at the outset of the program.

(C) First Stable Plateau

This is the hard part.  Most of the problem will evaporate once entry into the
domain name business becomes unrestricted.  For the most part, annual
redelegation of domains based on bids will not be necessary, because a new
registry can simply get a new TLD.

However, there are always going to be some uniquely hot domains. .xxx, .sex,
and .law come to mind most immediately.  These domains will generate
monopoly profits for their operators, and some of us have a lingering discomfort
about allocating this kind of economic power on a lottery or first-come basis.

One idea: if a registry is operated on a strict cost recovery basis and allows
write access to registrars without unreasonable restraint (and I reiterate that
CORE does not meet this criterion because the price of the admission ticket to
the club is unreasonably high) then the registry can keep the domain as long as
it satisfies technical criteria and it remains subject to periodic audit (at the
expense of the registry) to keep it honest.  If the registry is operated on a for-profit basis, then the domain will be re-awarded periodically on the basis of a
bidding process.  What the period should be, we can work on (I'm thinking
annual).  

How we select the winning bidder is also debatable.  I'm thinking that ICANN
should take into account not only the license fee proposed by the bidder for
being delegated the domain, but also what commitment the registry makes with
respect to end-user fees.  If the domain is reasonably expected to capture
1,000,000 SLD registrations per annum and the market will bear a charge of
$50.00 per name-year, a bidder who offers $10MM up front should be treated
the same as one who offers $5MM up front and agrees to limit charges to
$45.00 per name-year.


>> HELLO?  There isn't going to be consensus about this issue.
>> Let's stop kidding ourselves.
>
>GOODBYE? Don't give up yet....
>

This is not giving up.  It's a redirection away from the ongoing quest for the Holy
Grail of Consensus and toward starting to produce the kind of report that CAN
be produced, even if only five members of the WG sign it.

KJC
**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************