New registry services (Jisuk, Carlos, Marc - please note)

Milton Mueller Mueller at SYR.EDU
Thu Nov 6 19:48:18 CET 2003


Great comments, Harold. I will save these for future use because
they address substantive policy issues. The main issue before 
us now is whether the staff report can provide the basis for a
policy development process. But when it comes time to provide
NCUC perspectives on the actual policy, I (or our new Council
members) will put these views forward.

>>> Harold Feld <hfeld at mediaaccess.org> 11/06/03 01:52PM >>>
Milton, generally agree.  My own thoughts.

1) Registries, registrars, and users are best positioned to know what 
services best serve their needs.  Furthermore, there is great concern 
that pre-approval may be used by competitive rivals to delay roll out of 
new services -- to the disadvantage of users.  Nor is it the role of 
ICANN to preserve a particular status quo, but to focus on technical 
stability.

2) In particular, registries serving smaller, well identified 
communities, such as .org, .museum, or others, should be encouraged to 
consult within their communities before rolling out new services and 
ICANN should respect the choices of these communities.  This is 
particularly true where innovations will address clearly stated user 
needs, such as privacy concerns.  Generic registries should also be 
encouraged to establish informal consultation processes to ensure 
technical stability.  Use of these processes should be relevant in 
assessing whether any after-the-fact remedy or emergency relief is 
warranted.

2a) At the same time, registries as businesses may have genuine business 
reasons for wanting to maintain confidentiality of information.  ICANN 
should establish means by which such confidentiality can be protected, 
while providing adequate opportunity for potentially effected parties to 
comment and invoke remedies.

3) To the extent .com and .net pose a special case due to their existing 
market share, any policy process must clearly delineate the boundaries 
of such special consideration, why it is necessary, and what conditions 
must be met by the .com and .net registries to alleviate the need for 
such special treatment.

Milton Mueller wrote:

>We have been given an absurdly short time frame to comment
>on an ICANN staff report regarding a very complex issue: review 
>of new registry services by ICANN.
>
>In very brief form, the issue (as part of the fallout of Sitefinder)
>is whether ICANN should review every attempt of registries
>to introduce new services. The GNSO has been asked to make
>a policy on this. 
>
>Here is my proposed statement. Please give me your
>opinion by today. I apologize for the short time frame.
>
>=====
>
>NCUC believes that the draft "catalogue of issues" 
>on new registry services prepared by ICANN staff is 
>acceptable. We are concerned, however, that the 
>number and complexity of the issues posed are too
>numerous for a single PDP.
>
>NCUC believes that the focus of a process be not be
>on prior review of new services, but on improving 
>registry contracts to heighten technical and stability 
>considerations.
>
>As a user constituency, NCUC believes that contracts 
>should be strengthened to prevent registries from 
>exploiting user switching costs to make technical 
>changes that might affect the service users receive
>from a registry. 
>
>We believe that improved contracts and after-the-fact 
>challenge and review of services is preferable to a
>before-the-fact approval process, which is likely to
>be anti-competitive, anti-innovative, and bureaucratic.
>
>


More information about the Ncuc-discuss mailing list