NCUC Policy Discussion Document

[Milton Mueller]

>>> ( Adam Peake <ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP> 10/18/06 7:32 AM >>>

>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, that is exactly what a presumptive renewal policy does. If they
perform as promised, the incumbent gets the renewal. If they don't, then
you have a rebid. The rebid policy that danny advocates means that there
is no presumption on the part of the current operator. You throw the
thing up for grabs every 5 or 7 years. That's a bad policy for
valule-building, reputation-building, and long term investment.

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

Let's recall the history here. .Net and .org were supposed to go through
a REASSIGNMENT process, i.e., this was a competition policy measure to
DIVEST VeriSign of TLDs to reduce its market dominance. .Org was taken
away from VeriSign and given to a new operator. We all supported this.
Now let PIR, which is investing millions in branding org in a way we
like, keep it (unless they mess up). A rebid process could give it back
to VeriSign.

.NET was SUPPOSED to be taken away from VeriSign and given to someone
else. We all supported that, too, but ICANN chickened out when VRSN
played the "national security" card in the U.S. political setting.
Sure, I'd support a rebid of .net., but not as a general policy. It is
just a way of dealing with VRSN dominance.

So let's modify the statement to add that we support continued rebids of
.net. And then let's be finished, ok?

But the .net experience demonstrates what I have been saying all along.
If it is not politically feasible to take .net away from VeriSign you
are not ever ever going to get .com away from it.

.com has NEVER been through a rebid process -- and it never will go
through one.  And frankly, all of the hoopla about rebidding .com, as I
point out in the document, stems from "COM-lust" among other registries
and thus is of very little interest to us. you are talking about 45% of
the global domain name market.

Forget about .com and .net. They are not of great interest to the ncuc
anyway, and the best thing we can do is NOT get engaged in
inter-registry and registrar food fights over profit.

> OK, so a bit late to bring it up
>now, but I was busy with other stuff at the time... or lazy, or
>something.)

Indeed. Sorry folks we can't afford to reopen issues like this. This is
the kind of morass that crippled NCUC for so many years. We developed a
position. Those who chose not to participate in that, when they had
ample opportunity, have to accept limitations on what can be done now.