NCUC Policy Discussion Document

[Milton Mueller]

See attached with my edits. 

Main changes: 
* Replaced Danny's view of renewal policy with the constituency position.
* Retained Danny's more extended discussion of consensus policy, but deleted many paragraphs to make it shorter and more readable. Added a position on sponsored TLDs in line with our position. 
* Heavily edited the price control section to conform to our Marrakech discussion. Basic position is the same -- we favor status quo price caps -- but support is more qualified. 
* ICANN fee policy. Basically, this is a can of worms and we haven't discussed it much. I really don't understand the implications of various positions. Danny has proposed a view that registries pay all the costs and pass them on to registrars. Maybe this is right, maybe it's a disaster (it seems to conflict with the retention of existing price caps, because it would dramatically raise their relative costs) I propose that we punt on this issue, with the following language:
"We believe that this issue is too large and complex to be bundled into the same proceeding with the other issues. How ICANN's costs are allocated among registries, registrars and end users will have major effects on ICANN's operation, the efficiency of the market  and the relations among registrars and registries and needs to be considered and studied carefully. We call for external expert consultation and comment on this issue and a separate PDP."
But, I did not delete Danny's proposal, just highlighted it in yellow.

* Registry data usage. Kept everything, EXCEPT a paragraph calling for a new registry services process. (Boy, Danny you sure love bureaucratic procedures.) 

* On investment policy, deleted a bunch of completely extraneous stuff about DNSSEC. Added some language clarifying our earlier statement. Added one sentence that makes the same point about DNSSEC that it took Danny three pages to make.

In general, we need to make these documents as concise as possible. Our members don't have time to read and carefully consider 25 page documents every week. This exercise destroyed my day. Other than fanatics like me, when we produce documents that long, I have learned that people don't read them and you don't get any valuable feedback. Thus I have cut exraneous material throughout. 

>>> Carlos Afonso <ca at RITS.ORG.BR> 10/17/2006 4:24:58 PM >>>
Hi all, this is the reason why I suggested Danny posted the doc to the 
list in the first place. Good that this might spark a debate to make 
sure we have a consistent position on this. MM is right, there is 
significant ground already covered by the constituency which needs to be 
taken into account.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

Milton Mueller wrote:
> 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 
> 
> 

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
***************************************************************
Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital
com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o
Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações:
www.sacix.org.br   www.rits.org.br   www.coletivodigital.org.br 
***************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pdpFeb06--v2.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 190464 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20061017/c8417853/attachment.doc>