[ALAC] Proposed Renewal of .NET Registry Agreement

Mon May 8 10:00:52 UTC 2017

Folks

Maureen has a very good point.  The issues that face ICANN are complex and, even those of us who have been in more than a few GNSO WG are not au fait with all of the issues.  that’s why we have Confluence and why all comments should go there, so that the pen holder can learn from everyone with stuff to say. We all need the experience and wisdom of each other

Holly

On 8 May 2017, at 7:49 pm, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> wrote:

> Olivier
> 
> I agree that the ALAC should make a meaningful contribution to statements that come out of the system for At-Large commentary. But surely even ALAC members can't be expected to be experts on some of these topics that require specialist input. Therefore, having  not heard anything from anyone, we made our first call.  Surprisingly it has needed this to actually kickstart some discussion but it would be great if you could please put your comments on the designated workspace so that we can more easily coordinate a statement from the ALAC by the 30th May. 
> 
> Bastiaan and I are also involved with Andrei, Holly, Leon and Alberto, as well as Satish and Evan from outside of the ALAC  in another ALAC statement on gTLDs Subsequent Procedures PDP that is due before the 22nd. This has priority.  But we still need more contributors with some expertise in the areas of study for the various work tasks, especially Work Task #3 questions on String Contention Objections and Disputes. A separate workspace has been set up for each set of questions and  I am sure that general responses would be appreciated by the leads in these sections. 
> 
> For both papers, although it has taken a while to finally get some feedback which I really appreciate, the team and I will work on what contributions we receive to coordinate statements from the ALAC that reflects your concerns.  But it does require everyone to contribute if they have expertise in the subject matter. 
> 
> Truthfully, these are not subject areas I know much about, but as the penholder I am willing to coordinate the comments that arrive into a statement we can pass on. Please use the workspaces.
> 
> Maureen :)
> 
>  
> 
> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
> Dear Maureen,
> 
> I am sorry but your comment got me to raise my eyebrow: we wouldn't be expecting an end-user to analyse these costs, but we would expect ALAC members to. That's why they're elected as ALAC members. If we start reasoning that topics in ICANN are out of scope for the ALAC because an end user would not be expected to analyse the topic or be directly involved in the topic, then we can pretty much close shop because the majority of topics that are treated at ICANN are complex and need prior knowledge. I fully subscribe to the point made by Kaili that ALAC members are the end user's lawyers in the ICANN process.
> 
> On the .NET agreement, it is strange that, once again, the agreement would be just renewed and not put to a bidding process. And the commenter makes a good point about anti-trust laws. But for some reason, the US government has closed its eyes on this industry such that there is one major Registry player and one major Registrar player. It it for the ALAC to call for action? That's the question you need to ask yourselves. It is perhaps the fundamental question for this TLD renewal. It requires answers to two questions: one that requires skills and knowledge; the other that requires a discussion and a choice.
> 
> 1. Skills and knowledge: in the case of .NET, are conditions fulfilled for an automatic renewal of the Registry agreement, if there is such an option?
> 2. Discussion and choice: if conditions are not met, or there is no such automatic renewal option, then does the ALAC want to pick this up and make a point, bearing in mind this could start a process with an uncertain end?
> 
> Kindest regards,
> 
> Olivier
> 
> 
> On 08/05/2017 06:23, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
>> But really Alan, would we be expecting the ordinary end-user to be analysing these costs and other sections of the document in a similar way, without any prior expert knowledge about the ICANN contractual bidding process, previous contracts and other details you have outlined? Its outside of our scope.
>> 
>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>> Maureen and Bastiaan have review the .NET Registry Agreement revisions and are not recommending and ALAC statement.
>> 
>> There is one comment already pointing out that there the contract (both the current one and the revised one) allow for a 10$ increase in the price to the registrar per year. Note that for New gTLDs, pricing is out of scope of ICANN registry agreements. Based on the 2011 price of $4.65 and the 2017 price of 8.20, it would appear that they have used the full 10% over the term of the last current agreement. The 10% rate is the same as that in the current .ORG agreement. .COM presumably due to the size of the registrant base is price-capped.
>> 
>> The comment also says the contract should not be renewed, but rather put out for competitive bidding - something that is not within ICANN's ability to decide (and confirmed by the statement calling upon government anti-trust action). See https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-net-renewal-20apr17/2017-April/000000.html.
>> 
>> Alan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>> 
>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>> 
>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> 
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170508/09da8b91/attachment.html>