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

[Marc Schneiders]

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, at 17:10 [=GMT-0500], Milton Mueller wrote:

> >>> Marc Schneiders <marc at SCHNEIDERS.ORG> 11/06/03 02:14PM >>>
>
> >I suggest that we refuse to comment before we get the full thing.
>
> Counterproductive. The "full thing" is supposed to be based on
> constituency comment.

Well, I gave some, no longer present below. This first version is a
list of leading questions. We need a problem description.

> >And why is there now this super hurry?
>
> Get used to it! GNSO is being asked to do more than ever.
> 3 Whois Task Forces, new TLD process, New Registry
> Services, UDRP review process....(now you know, heh heh, why
> I didn't run for Council again.)
>
> The good news is that ICANN management and staff aren't
> doing it unilaterally

So who is to blame?

> (we'd complain if they were). But
> if Council doesn't act fast it either becomes irrelevant or the
> workload just piles up.
>
> >The issue is that Verisign changed
> >the behaviour of the DNS. This is no new service. This is changing an
> >existing service.
>
> SiteFinder is one issue. The problem is (as often happens in public
> policy) that one actor's behavior leads to the creation of
> rules that are then applied to EVERYONE. So the danger here
> is that by overreacting or reacting inappropriately to the
> reviled SiteFinder, ICANN further cripples of bureaucratizes
> the DNS. Don't base your view of policy exclusively on whether
> you hate VeriSign or not.

That is exactly what I tried to say in my email. Thank you for putting
it in these more general words.

> >In other words: Registries cannot change things just to make money.
> >Especially not if they do not sell a new product, but simply turn
> >assets in their care into money makers.
>
> Sounds like a good general policy prescription. But no, you cannot
> rely on "common sense" to implement it. You must either translate
> it into the terms of the registry contract to give it legal force, or
> you must implement an ex ante review procedure.

I tried to sow another path in my earlier email. Sitefinder is not
about new services, but about abusing a service contract for making
money without introducing any new service. Sitefinder may be construed
as a service to users of the internet (as Verisign did). But not as a
service to their customers, domain name registrants. What Verisign did
with Sitefinder amounts to the same as my bank giving info about my
bad credit to loan sharks. (I am streching it a bit, ok.)