NCUC Policy Discussion Document

[Adam Peake]

I've a problem with renewal policy  (OK, so a bit late to bring it up
now, but I was busy with other stuff at the time... or lazy, or
something.)

I'm fine with presumptive renewal for the new ICANN created TLDs --
info, biz, travel etc etc.   But why for the pre-ICANN TLDs?

COM, NET and ORG have been through a re-bid process (of one kind or
another), promises were made in those bids.  Surly to say a
presumption of renewal exists is pretty much saying to those
registries, 'don't worry about what you promised a couple of years
ago, unless you mess-up really badly, you're keeping your cash cow.'

ORG, for example, the bid was won not on technical criteria (and
Afilias seems to be doing just fine), but on ISOC's promises of what
it would do with the cash it received from ORG registrants.  I think
we should be requiring a review of whether those promises have been
met, to the same standard we would promises of technical performance.
Then they get their renewal.

Adam




>Danny:
>I'm impressed by your energy but very disappointed by your decision to
>completely alter established NCUC positions.
>
>The constituency has over the course of the last 6 months staked out a
>clear and consensual position on the renewal issue. You have completely
>abandoned that, despite no indications of support from others in the
>constituency, and come up with an entirely new and different position.
>The position is very complicated, based on ccTLD procedures, and takes
>the registrar constituency position on rebids.
>
>That's not the way things can be done here. Please refer to the
>existing NCUC statement on renewal expectancy,
>http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0604&L=ncuc-discuss&T=0&O=D&X=6285946F42781A231F&Y=mueller%40syr.edu&P=6368
>
>
>and also to the notes of the NCUC meeting in Marrakech, drafted by
>Carlos.
>http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0606&L=ncuc-discuss&T=0&O=D&X=1988C02DA913349905&Y=mueller%40syr.edu&P=8740
>
>
>Any position must use these discussions and drafts as a starting point.
>
>
>The Marrakech meeting discussed these positions extensively. That was
>in fact the largest real-time grouping of constituency members in some
>time. It is unacceptable to trash that work.
>
>Please do not submit this report to the Rapporteur group, or to anyone
>else, otherwise the constituency will have to disavow it and that will
>make us all look ridiculous, and undermine your credibility in the
>process.
>
>I have only read the renewal part. Since that was completely orthogonal
>to what we have discussed and written so far, I fear going any further.
>As time permits, I'll read the rest of it but can't say that I am
>looking forward to it.
>
>Really, Danny, show some respect for the fact that this is a
>CONSTITUENCY that needs to develop positions as a group.
>
>
>>>>  Danny Younger <dannyyounger at YAHOO.COM> 10/17/2006 8:24 AM >>>
>Dear all,
>
>A formal NCUC Statement has been prepared covering the
>following topics:
>
>1)  gTLD renewal policy
>2)  policy for gtld Consensus Policy limitations
>3)  gTLD price control policy
>4)  policy for ICANN fees pertaining to gTLDs
>5)  policy on the use of gTLD registry data
>6)  gTLD development/infrastructure investment policy
>
>This statement is attached as a twenty (20) page Word
>document.  The statement has already been forwarded to
>the NCUC Policy Committee for review and now awaits
>your constituency member comments, suggested
>modifications, and/or partial or complete revisions.
>
>Per the timetable established by Rapporteur Groups A &
>B, our final work-product must be submitted by 24
>October in order to be included in the Final Report
>submitted to the GNSO PDP Task Force on Contractual
>Conditions for Existing Registries.
>
>As the views of our constituency will not necessarily
>coincide with those expressed by other constituencies,
>it is important that a cogent Minority Report makes
>its way to the ICANN Board via the GNSO's Final
>Report.
>
>Each paragraph has been numbered for ease of
>discussion, and all member comments will be referenced
>in the final version of this document.
>
>I look forward to your assistance in properly
>presenting the NCUC view on these matters.
>
>Thank you for your assistance,
>Danny Younger
>isoc-ny
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com