Fwd: Re: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] comments on expert advice

[Milton Mueller]

Mawaki:
I don't see any expert advice here.
By the way, one is not supposed to say this but in this context there
is no avoiding it:
I AM an expert on DNS economics, and have published, e.g., in refereed
scholarly publications and have been engaged in litigation as an expert
witness on these issues. For some reason neither ICANN staff, board, nor
GNSO seems terribly willing to pay attention to those publications or to
those of any other expert who tells them things they don't want to hear.
GNSO is about politics, not expertise.

>>> Mawaki Chango <ki_chango at YAHOO.COM> 9/16/2006 3:44:58 AM >>>
Re. the rebid issue and expert advice, here it is...

--- Mawaki Chango <ki_chango at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:00:39 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mawaki Chango <ki_chango at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] comments on expert advice
> To: PDPfeb06 <pdp-pcceg-feb06 at gnso.icann.org>
>
> All,
>
> here are further inputs re the questions about which we might seek
> expert advice; I roughly mentioned some of them during our meeting
> in
> Marrakesh. (Unfortunately, I threw away the hard copy of the report
> I
> annotated at that time and have to do this all over again.)
>
> ToR-1: Registry Agreement Renewal
>
> Exploring the range of the various renewal standards possible in
> comparable or related industries: What are the existing standards,
> the (best) practices? BC's statement points out the relevance of
> having "different renewal qualifications for sponsored TLDs" and
> more
> generally, based on the differences in characteristics of the
> registries. We may be able (or may need expert advice) to clarify,
> beyond the labels used by ICANN to name the different types of
> registries, how truly different registries do we have in terms of
> different business models, economics and policy.
>
> Presumptive renewal: Is it possible to reconciliate this option
> with
> the objective of continuously ensuring that registries will do
> their
> best to provide the best service at the best price possible for the
> end user? Are there any instruments and practices to achieve this?
>
> No presumptive renewal: It would be good to clearly document the
> case
> of .net rebid mentioned by BC with regard to this issue. Are there
> practices and procedures that are, or can be, generalizable and
> institutionalized to ensure the rebid process provide the
> opportunity
> to improve the registry services without necessarily taking from
> them
> the agreement (unless there are crime, breach of contract, repeated
> failure, etc.)? What are the shortcomings of that type of rebid
> (any
> secondary effects?), do the advantages outweigh those? How credible
> such process will be if it becomes a common practice in the
> ICANN/registry industry?
>
> BC, p.20: "renewal in these [other] industries arises because the
> involve capital-intensive investments in very long-life assets and
> often include high licensing or authorization fees [...], which is
> not the case with gTLD registries."
> We may need expert material (or advice) of comparative study of the
> TLD industry with other ICT industries: - structure of the
> industry;
> - level of investment; - cost-benefit analysis including analysis
> of
> return on investment, etc.
>
> ***
> I thought I would be able to carry on with the ToR-3 (Price
> controls), but I unfortunately have to stop here for now.
>
> Liz, thank you for the overview on the expert materials; I wish I
> had
> the time to go into detail at least of the Singapore procedures
> that
> look very rich. Also my apologies if we haven't been able to follow
> up on every single point that we discussed inside and outside the
> TF
> meeting in Marrakesh (Milton hasn't been much available since, both
> because he first was too busy and then, and still, on vacation).
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>
> --- Mawaki Chango <ki_chango at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think the dialogue with the experts should be directly on
> > the
> > TORs, or on each TOR. We do need subquestions - more specific
> > questions under the relevant TOR we think we need that
> consultation
> > on. I might post later on one or two of those possible
> > sub-questions.
> >
> > Mawaki
> >
>
>