[NA-Discuss] Comment on the .NET auto-renew and contract terms

Eric Brunner-Williams ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Mon May 9 15:42:19 UTC 2011

On 5/9/11 10:03 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> On 9 May 2011, at 09:46, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>> If there is anyone who wishes to go on record questioning the wisdom
>> of auto-renewal for Verisign's franchises, and/or ending monopoly in
>> the registry function, drop me a line today as comments close tomorrow.
> Not that we have a great record of working together, but I would be interested in seeing some telling and convincing comment made.

True, but this is an area where you and I may be in substantial agreement.

> My problem is that the contract itself and the contractual conditions recommended by the GNSO give a presumption of renewal (I argued against it in the Task Force but as usual, was not successful it getting it removed).  How do we get around that?

By distinguishing between the utility of predictability of operator 
and investor continuity where the contracts are recent, furthering a 
competition policy goal, and the lack of utility of continuity where 
the contracts are legacy, and the original, and continuous object of 
transformation policy, consistent with the competition policy goal 
ICANN was formed to achieve.

There is a public interest in reducing the market power of the legacy 
monopoly incumbent. That the GNSO did not, for whatever reasons, and 
there are many, arrive at that as goal, is not determinative, as the 
GNSO does not contain a formal vehicle for the articulation of the 
public interest.

The ALAC is that vehicle, as is the GAC, for those public interests 
arising from sovereigns.

And finally, nothing prevents individual comments, even those pointing 
out the absurdity of turning competitive awards of finite franchise 
into the perpetual private property of corporate persons.


More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list