[bc-gnso] RE: Important--Registry Registrar Separation issue

Sun Aug 2 10:49:23 UTC 2009

This exchange hasn't helped us move forward.

If Mike R (as the current rapporteur) could advise us on the steps he  
needs to develop a set of BC comments and where those comments need to  
go, we would make a positive step forward.

Liz
On 31 Jul 2009, at 22:39, Ron Andruff wrote:

>
> Thank you for the details, George.  I was looking for brevity, and  
> hoped
> most would understand my shorthand.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> RA
>
> Ronald N. Andruff
> RNA Partners, Inc.
> 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor
> New York, New York 10001
>
> www.rnapartners.com
> V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11
> F:  +1 212 481 2859
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On  
> Behalf Of
> George Kirikos
> Sent: 2009-07-31 17:15
> To: BC gnso
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Registry Registrar Separation  
> issue
>
>
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Ron Andruff wrote:
>>
>> We support Michael Palage's statement that the BC needs to take a  
>> position
>> on this matter, even if there are some dissenters within the  
>> constituency
>> (which can addend a note clarifying their disagreement with the  
>> position
>> taken).  Whether members agree with George's arguments or not, what
> matters
>> here is that ICANN staff (former CEO?) has unilaterally brought this
>> forward.  ICANN is a bottom-up, consensus-driven organization and  
>> it is on
>> this point the BC must take a stand.  Reversing such a significant
> decision
>> as this one, without the BC raising our collective voice, would
> demonstrate
>> what many have said about the Business Constituency, i.e., it no  
>> longer
> has
>> any relevance to the ICANN process.
>>
>> 'Status quo' is not the argument here.  It is about fundamental
> principles.
>>
>> Let's get a call scheduled to discuss this in detail, and then take  
>> a vote
>> on a position.  A drafting team can then articulate the outcome in  
>> a BC
>> position.
>
> Where's the fire? We don't even have basic information as to the who,
> what, where, when, why, and how of why this is suddenly an "issue of
> importance" at this time. We saw what happened last time when the
> officers suddenly unilaterally declared an emergency position
> supposedly on behalf of the entire constituency on the IRT, in hasty
> fashion (there should have been a vote called, as previously discussed
> at length).
>
> Our existing charter spells out a procedure (section 7) for developing
> written policy:
>
> http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm
>
> There should be a Rapporteur. There should be a draft position
> circulated for comment. There should be a 14 day comment period. The
> draft can be changed/amended. If there's more than 10% opposition of
> paid-up members (do we even have a current list of members posted on
> our website, as I've asked numerous times on this list? we've not had
> a contacts list updated in many months, despite membership changes in
> the interim), there shall be a vote.
>
> There were multiple comment periods already on the Draft Applicant
> Guidebooks for new gTLDs. My company submitted comments, as did many
> other members of this constituency. We did it on time.
>
> All these sloppy, rushed and ad-hoc processes do not convey a good
> impression of this constituency and its operation. I understand some
> BC members are affiliated with registrars. Other BC members are
> affiliated with registry operators, or are wannabe registry operators
> who want to get their hands on a new gTLD. Why should the rest of us
> (those of us that don't have these conflicts of interests) even care
> about your quarrel, about who picks Door #1 or Door #2, the false
> choice when Door #3 (i.e. competitive tenders for operation of a
> registry) is the clear winner to benefit consumers/registrants, and is
> the position of the NTIA/DOC/DOJ and would result in the lowest
> prices?
>
> Folks might find Philip's statement in the GNSO Council mailing list
> illuminating:
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07072.html
>
> as it discusses implicitly these conflicts of interest. Or Mike
> Rodenbaugh on the same topic:
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07045.html
>
> "Obviously, those entities should find a place somewhere in the
> contracting party house where their interests are aligned, whether as
> observers or whatever, but
> they should not be allowed on the other side where interests are  
> clearly
> different."
>
> (i.e. in the context of wannabe registry operators being a
> constituency in the Commercial Stakeholders Group)
>
> Yet, those same people (wannbe registry operators, or others with
> important interests as registrars) are already in the BC! Re-read the
> following by Philip:
>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00231.html
>
> ".....because of the current uncertainty of where new Constituencies
> for groups such as Registry Operators, Applicant City TLDs, Applicant
> Registries, Resellers should sit. The Contracted Parties are adamant
> they belong in the Commercial Stakeholders Group because all of these
> groups do not have an ICANN Contract. Having the ability in our
> Charter to argue such groups do not sit well in our SG seemed a wise
> precaution in this transitional stage."
>
> If these groups "do not sit well in our SG", why should the rest of us
> be witness to their machinations, pretending that they are
> "businesses" and belong in the BC, when their true intentions are to
> become new gTLD operators, and thus are NOT ALIGNED with the BC?
>
> I recall submitting detailed comments on a draft charter for this
> constituency, as did others. That topic suddenly disappeared from the
> constituency agenda, as we're "too busy" with other things. Yet when
> new gTLD applicants want something put on our agenda, we as a
> constituency suddenly "jump"? Why? There are several active public
> comment periods (and some that recently closed):
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/
>
> What amount of BC discussion on those has taken place? Isn't Root
> Server Scaling important? Or eUDRP? Why aren't price caps an important
> issue, far more important than splitting the "spoils of war" between
> registrars and registries? Most businesses are neither registries nor
> registrars, they are REGISTRANTS, with clear interests aligned with
> consumers.
>
> We had news months ago that ICANN is going to cover travel expenses of
> GNSO Council, for example, meaning that the BC budget should be
> lowered to remove those planned expenses. Why isn't that on the
> agenda, rebates to members to reflect lower expenses? We had several
> new registry services applications by VeriSign:
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/
>
> that this constituency didn't make a statement on. My company did:
>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/registryservice/
>
> and now the registrar constituency sees the need for more study.
>
> So, in conclusion, I don't see why the agenda of new gTLD applicants
> and the registrars are the concern of the BC at this time. They should
> be recusing themselves from this discussion within the BC, and
> following the principles of "Divisional Separation" which are
> mentioned in our charter:
>
> "Applicants and members which do participate elsewhere are required to
> demonstrate that their BC membership will be divisionally oriented
> meaning that separate individuals will represent those divisions in
> ICANN affairs, and ********that the entity will only represent user or
> consumer perspectives within the Business Constituency.*******"
> (emphasis added)
>
> instead of so clearly trying to sway the BC to take their side in a
> dispute that harms consumers either way they each wish to go. The best
> route forward is to ignore the concerns of both those sides, and do
> what's best for consumers/registrants and "normal businesses" (i.e.
> excluding registrars, registries and wannabes, and their respective
> consultants/lobbyists/attorneys).
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>
>