Report on the PDP-Feb06 from Sao Paulo

[Milton Mueller]

>>> Mawaki Chango <ki_chango at YAHOO.COM> 12/5/2006 3:20 PM >>>
>Policy Recommendation C:
>There should be a reasonable expectation of renewal for
>all registry agreements.
>
>Policy Recommendation D:
>There should be a renewal expectancy for all registry agreements.
>
>Policy Recommendation E:
>There should be a presumption of renewal for all registry
>agreements
>
>NCUC: The constituency initially coined the option D, but may have to
>consider C which is new and implies there will be a competitive bid
>before renewal.

Our position on this was worked out.
We opposed competitive bidding, except for .net.
So we would favor D combined with G (see below). Except that "market
power" is not really the problem with .net, so G would have to be
reworded. Basically, it is acceptable to rebid the TLDs that VeriSign
had legacy control of and were supposed to be re-assigned under the
agreement that led to the reassignment of .org. (i.e., .net)
That does not include .com, which they get to keep under the same
renewal expectancy.

>Policy Recommendation G:
>The 'right of renewal' should be standardized for gTLD registry
>agreements except when there is an exceptional situation,
>such as a situation of market dominance or market power.

NCUC: G (SP consensus)

>Policy Recommendation J:
>Consensus policies should always be applied to all gTLD registries.
>On an individual basis, during the contract negotiation, a registry
>could present a situational analysis and justification, which should
>be posted for public comment before acceptance/inclusion in the
>contract, for an exception/or modification from a particular
>consensus policy, due to unique circumstances of how a particular
>policy would affect that registry. Such an exception will not create
>any prejudice for extension to any other gTLD registry.
>
>NCUC: J (SP consensus)

yuk. that's horrible. too discretionary. I would favor something like a
modified Policy Recommendation I: "Consensus policies should apply to
all gTLD registries after the nearest contract term ends." (Shouldn't
change a contract in mid-stream. After the contract ends if they don't
like it they can get out.)


>TERM OF REFERENCE 3
>Policy for price controls for registry services
>Policy Recommendation N (Option 2):
>
>The NCUC has argued that it is premature to formulate policy in the
>area of pricing without having had the benefit of an intensely
>focused study on this topic. They believe that a new PDP is required
>to address the specific issue of price controls. ("We believe that
>existing price caps should be left in place for the short term, and
>another, separate PDP inaugurated on methods and criteria for
>changing, raising or eliminating price caps in the future.")
>
>Thus, another option is to keep the status by encouraging ICANN to
>continue with existing pricing provisions and initiating a targeted
>PDP on this issue alone taking into account the upcoming economist's
>report (http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-18oct06.htm).
>
>NCUC: N

Yeah! Good stuff. Also, the "market dominance" analysis in the Option 1
is fallacious from an economic point of view. To an individual
registrant with an established domain, opportunistic pricing hurts them
whether or not the registry is dominant in the total  market.

>TERM OF REFERENCE 4
>ICANN fees
>
>4a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding registry
>fees to ICANN, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be.
>
>Policy Recommendation O and P:
>
>NCUC: Yes (SP consensus)

Fine by me.

>Policy Recommendation Q:
>There should be a policy regarding the use of registry data [which
>includes traffic data] for purposes other than that for which it was
>collected.
>
>NCUC: Yes (SP consensus)

Yes. duh.

>5b. Determine whether any policy is necessary to ensure
>non-discriminatory access to registry data that is made available to
>third parties.
>
>Policy Recommendation R:
>There should be a policy to ensure non-discriminatory access to
>registry data that is made available, but that policy should include
>safeguards on protection against misuse of the data.

Hmm, why make it avvailable at all?

good work y'all!