<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7036.0">
<TITLE>Dot net</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Council,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">for possible discussion under AOB at the Council meeting May 12. Please note I have just posted this comment to the dot.net public comments web site.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Background</FONT></B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I previously posted to ICANN .net public comments, concern about the dissonance in the Telcordia methodology and the GNSO .net report and its recommendation.</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"></FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The GNSO report stated that the number one relative criteria was "Relative Criteria related to promotion of competition." The conclusion of my previous posting was that the methodology of the evaluator's report directly contradicts the essence of the GNSO report.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">At the Mar del Plata ICANN meeting, there were several questions made by members of the ICANN community, regarding the Telecordia report. Telcordia was asked to respond to the questions raised by the other bidders, and has done so. I fear that the response still misses the essential point. The criteria Telcordia used provided no measure of value of one applicant over another dependent on their current market position in the REGISTRY market - the very market in which the GNSO council was seeking to competitively enhance. Instead, all the measures looked at how the REGISTRAR market might be competitively enhanced. While it was left to Telcordia to design the evaluation criteria, these criteria were signed off by ICANN. The ICANN Board has the responsibility to ensure, as part of their responsibility to maintain the stability and security of the Internet’s identifier systems, that an underlying competitive environment is enhanced. It is now up to the ICANN Board to mitigate the negative impact of an award with respect to competitiveness at the Registry level.</FONT></P>
<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Proposal</FONT></B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Should the ICANN Board decide to award .net to the incumbent, they do so in the knowledge that this sanctions a circa 84% market share in the Registry market. Such an award should only be made based on a set of<U> conditions</U> to mitigate any potential undesirable effects of undue market dominance. Conditions that should be considered include the following:</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">1.</FONT><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman"></FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Divestment of all minority interests in all other Registries within say 1 year.</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">2. Divestment of all interests in all Registrars within say 1 year.</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">3. A re-bid for .net every 6 years.</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Philip Sheppard</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>