first, somewhat lame response to pdp-feb06

[Mawaki Chango]

having pb with wifi. as soon as i can, will send this to Liz as our input the PDP??
pls send edits comments if any, in the next couple of hrs, thx
--- NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <Mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:
> NCUC Task Force Members' Preliminary Discussion of "Contractual Conditions
> of Existing  gTLDs"
>
> These are preliminary positions developed by the NCUC Task Force members.
> They are put  forward to stimulate discussion and debate, both within NCUC
> and across other  constituencies.
>
>
> 1.	Registry agreement renewals
>
> We believe that it is in the public interest for there to be a renewal
> expectancy for parties who  have been delegated generic top-level domains.
> By "renewal expectancy" we mean that  those who were originally assigned a
> top level domain should retain the assignment unless  there is a significan
> t problem, such as criminal activity, breach of contract, repeated failure
> to  meet service standards, or serious noncompliance with applicable ICANN
> rules and  policies. In this view, reassignment of the domain is punishment
>  for malfeasance -- not an  attempt to run a periodic beauty contest to
> determine who is the "best" operator.
>
> We believe that presumptive renewal as described above is required for a
> long-term view of  value-creation and investment in a domain name and the
> associated infrastructure.  Continuity and stable expectations about who
> will be in control is required for the  development of a community. This
> is especially true for sponsored or nonprofit domains.  Operators who
> succeed in creating value, identity or a community around a domain should
> not have that taken out from under them. They should be able to reap the
> benefits of their  creation of value, and be able to build on it into the
> future.
>
> We accept the importance of the principle of competition. We do not,
> however, believe that it  requires taking established domains and throwing
> them up for grabs every five years or so  when there are no major problems
> with the operation of a domain. Registrar-level  competition helps to
> ensure that retail services associated with any gTLD registry will be
> competitive, and cross-gTLD diversity will ensure users a variety of
> naming alternatives (or  "intermodal" competition). Those are the most
> important forms of competition. Reassigning  a gTLD simply substitutes one
> operator with exclusive control of the domain for another.  While this can
> put pressure on the incumbent to perform better in a short-term time
> horizon,  we believe that on the whole the amount of time and resources
> spent on fighting over the  control of the domain would outweigh the
> prospective benefits. We also note that achieving  improved performance
> from a new operator can only be a promise, and that transfers of  control
> inherently involve costs and risks.
>
>
> 2. Relationship between registry agreements and consensus policies
>
> This is an issue that NCUC feels has not been discussed or debated
> adequately. Our only  point is that we must distinguish carefully between
> the problems raised by one dominant  operator's registry agreement (.com)
> and policies that are appropriate as a general rule for  all rgeistries.
> We look forward to listening to the views of other constituencies and the
> public  on this question.
>
> We believe that existing sponsored domains should retain the policy-making
> authority. We  say this not because we support the concept of sponsored
> domains per se, but because we  support greater diversity and decentralizat
> ion of policy making authority.
>
>
> 3. Policy for price controls for registry services
>
> We recognize that price caps can be justified as a way of protecting
> consumers in markets  with high switching costs. Domain name registrations
> do have high switching costs. Rather  than making specific policy
> recommendations, we make these observations:
>
> a) We must not assume that ICANN contracts are the proper mechanism for
> price controls.  Regulatory authorities in national governments have some
> ability to respond to this problem,  either through antitrust laws or
> through sector-specific regulations. We believe that the
=== Message Truncated ===