<html>
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:navy;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
span.EmailStyle18
{font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
span.EmailStyle19
{font-family:Arial;
color:blue;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>To; ICANN public comment process on
existing contracts</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>The personal views expressed below by </span></font><font
size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:blue'>Marilyn Cade</span></font><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'> are congruent with those
expressed within the ISPCP Constituency, in particular the following recommendation;</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue;font-weight:bold'>Recommendation:</span></font></b><font
size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:blue'> ICANN should put the negotiations with various
registries that are now underway -- .biz; .info, and .org on hold until the
completion of the PDP 06 and the Council’s submission to the Board
of any policies that are the outcome of PDP 06</span></font><font color=blue><span
lang=EN-US style='color:blue'>. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>On that basis the ISPCP would like to
express support for the above Recommendation and urge the Board to give this
serious consideration during their deliberations.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Tony Holmes</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Chairman ISPCP Constituency</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font
size=2 face=Tahoma><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>
Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> </span></font><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>Monday,
August 28, 2006</span></font><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> </span></font><font
size=2 face=Tahoma><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>5:23
PM</span></font><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> 'biz-tld-agreement@icann.org'<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Cc:</span></b> 'Marilyn Cade'<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> comments on biz,info and
org</span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>To: ICANN public comment process on existing
contracts</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>These comments are submitted as an individual member
of the ICANN community, and in my individual capacity as a business user
constituency member. However, I draw on my expertise as an Councilor who has
studied these issues, read the public record as submitted by all parties,
have followed the Board and senior staff public discussions in the various
ICANN face to face meetings, monitored the various lists, including the U.S.
Department of Commerce public comments on the Memorandum of
Understanding. I am familiar with the Terms of Reference of PDP 06, and
of the work underway to address the development of policy related to existing
contracts in the Task Force. I have also reviewed the three contracts and
their appendixes that are posted for public comment in some detail. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'>Recommendation:</span></font></b><span
lang=EN-US> ICANN should put the negotiations with various registries that are
now underway -- .biz; .info, and .org on hold until the completion of the PDP
06 and the Council’s submission to the Board of any policies that
are the outcome of PDP 06. </span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>According to the timeline of the Task Force, this PDP
is scheduled for completion at the end of the year, 2006. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'>Background: </span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>There is a PDP underway; supporting it to its
conclusion and applying the outcome to the existing contracts should be the
logical outcome to this process. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>The agreements as posted include several elements that
are now the subject of a policy development process, known as PDP 06. This PDP
has a Terms of Reference that include as an example, the terms related to
renewal conditions; whether there should be a policy concerning price controls;
whether there should be a policy guiding payment of fees to ICANN by
registries/what that policy should be; what rights the registry has in the
commercial uses of traffic data; and the relationship between consensus policy
and registry agreements. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>This Policy Development process grew out of widespread
agreement within the GNSO Council that there are broader policy issues that
relate to the contractual conditions of existing gTLD agreements, after the
community’s experience with how ICANN dealt with the .net and .com
negotiations. The GNSO Council and the community are taking the
policy development process and their responsibilities quite seriously and are
devoting extensive resources to addressing the Terms of Reference. The
PDP is scheduled for completion at the end of the year, 2006. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'>Examples of some of the area of
concern that has been raised within the community regarding the proposed posted
contracts and which I support as areas of concern: </span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'> </span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'>Pricing Policy: </span></font></b><span
lang=EN-US>One of the provisions in the proposed contracts gives the Registry,
which in all cases is a sole monopoly within their own TLD space, complete
flexibility at the registry level, to set prices, including, it appears, on a
per name basis. This is a seriously flawed provision, if indeed the
contracts do provide for this.</span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>This is an area that was of significant concern to
famous and well known brand holders at the launch of ICANN, where companies who
spend millions on brand development, were concerned that registries could
decide to individually price domain names. For example, a company who holds the
world’s best known brand might find itself asked to pay several hundred
thousand dollars for their domain name upon renewal. Given the lack of
‘substitutability’ in a trademarked brand, used as a domain name,
the corporation is essentially ‘hostage’ to any registry with the
flexibility of ‘one off’ pricing. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Building brand recognition has been done by the
companies who offer the e-commerce services, not by the registry. Registration
of domain names has to remain a matter of structural separation between
registries and registrars; registries should not be allowed to individually
price domain names at the wholesale level, which is where the registry
is. Competition at the registrar level provides protection to the cost of
registration itself – because registration services are in competitive
environments, unlike registry services. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Certain registries may believe that they should be
able to speculate in individual names, since there is now a robust secondary
market in the domain name marketplace. A secondary market in domain names
does not justify giving a sole source provider of a gTLD this capability.
There would be no controls over how registries might treat domain names, and
neither registrants nor registrars would have any protection from individual
registry decisions. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>I have a number of additional concerns about the
importance of maintaining price caps, and of having a policy related to price
caps. Given that this is one of the terms of reference issues, I will look to
that process to further elaborate on those concerns.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'>Recommendation: </span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Price ‘caps’ which are presently in the
existing contracts, should remain in place; in fact, I would go further to note
that price platforms and ceilings should be established by ICANN for
registries. It is feasible that a sponsored gTLD may provide additional
services to the registrant, such as verification of eligibility, etc., and thus
that platform/ceiling may be different from the open/unrestricted registry
fees. It is also possible that a dominant registry could decide to charge
nothing for registration, engaging in cross subsidy, and thus completely
undercutting new entrants in newer gTLD registries. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>The Task Force is discussing identification and
consultation with independent resources with expertise in anti trust and competition
and economic policies that are relevant to decisions and treatment of registry
agreements. I strongly recommend that ICANN support this consultation and
make the consultations available publicly, so that the full community can be
informed. Registries will be able to participate fully in the consultation and
offer clarifying input, in those areas where they are not in agreement. However
the proposed agreements should not be concluded while this consultation is
underway. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'>Perpetual/automatic/presumptive
renewal: </span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'> </span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>The policy issues under examination in the PDP of high
visibility and broad community concern include a form of presumptive renewal.
For example, the Business Constituency and other constituencies and members of
the community have expressed their opposition to the form of perpetual renewal
that is in com agreement that is yet to be accepted by the US Department
of Commerce, with legal counsel by the US DoJ. Yet a form of that
assumptive renewal is included in the three draft agreements that is the
subject of this post, with no stated intent to acknowledge, nor to take into
account the policy development role and functions of the GNSO, nor to reflect
the guidance that will be forthcoming in a matter of several weeks.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'>Recommendation:</span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>The contracts should not be completed at this time.
These contract agreements should be put on hold while the PDP 06 is concluded,
and the consensus policy, whatever it is, that is the outcome, should be used
to negotiate existing registry agreements. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Policy should not be made by developing contractual
terms and then extending them into other contracts – instead the staff
must become accustomed to the fact that the GNSO is their policy partner
– and it is the GNSO that must provide policy guidelines and policy
guidance. The board itself needs to provide strong leadership and
guidance to the Staff that the policy development process must be fully
supported, and embraced, which may mean additional resources and support for
independent experts, as is now being discussed by the PDP 06 Task Force.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'>Extending flawed conditions to some
Registries but not all: </span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'> </span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>Of even more
interest is that ICANN is offering these terms to three large registries --
.biz; info; and .org, but not to the sponsored gTLDs. While I strongly object
to ICANN undertaking the contract negotiations until the PDP is concluded, I
question why ICANN would approach .org; which isn’t lapsing until 2009,
but appears not to have offered the terms to the remaining gTLDs, such as
.museum; aero, name, etc. etc. It makes no sense to single out .org, which is
over 2 + years away and draw them forward, but not make similar offers to the
other gTLDS. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>I object to the extension of these flawed conditions
to any of the registries, but note the differential treatment by staff, without
explanation. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'> </span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'>Treatment of Traffic Data: </span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>The agreements give far too much openness to allow the
registries to potentially control or use traffic data for undefined commercial
uses. This potentially puts others who may be dependent upon access to
traffic data to assess networking needs, or build competitive products. The
registries are essential monopolies; when site finder was introduced by a
registry, the community was gravely concerned. The terms related to traffic
data need to be more clearly documented, and the impact on competition, and on
adjacent markets examined before the terms are agreed to in these proposed
agreements. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Historically, the community has opposed the string
being ‘owned’ by the registry, who is to work as a contracted party
to ICANN.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>ICANN must take care not to be establishing a
situation where a registry could be seeking to establish ownership or control
outside of, or in addition to the terms of the contract they have with ICANN,
through establishing exclusive rights in such things as traffic data. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'>Treating the GNSO as a partner:</span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>ICANN staff must become more broadly supportive to the
policy development role of the GNSO, and should assess what legal resources
should be provided routinely, to the PDP process. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>It is not in ICANN’s best interests, nor in the
interest of ICANN stability to create parallel processes where the legal staff
negotiate contracts, but are not integral and supportive of the policy
development process. The GNSO and the ccNSO are partners to the ICANN staff in
the development of policies to their respective areas of responsibility. . </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>It is in fact harmful to ICANN’s international
legitimacy when its broad community so clearly is calling for one process to be
followed, and there is a completely separate set of actions that are staff
driven, but not inclusive of/nor recognizing the ongoing PDP process. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Consensus policy must be applicable to existing
contracts. If there are true justifications to why it must be modified, or
delayed in its application, that must be identified, and posted for the
community to examine and determine whether such a concept is in the best
interest of the broader community. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Of course, registries will prefer not to have any
application of consensus policy, however, there could be a mechanism for
registries to show cause why a consensus policy will directly harm their
ability to serve their registrant base, or harm the interoperability or
stability of the Internet. A comment process will allow for the registry to
make such a case and in rare circumstances, gain a waiver of consensus policy. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>We must all take great care not to even
unintentionally circumnavigate and ignore the bottom up multistakeholder
participatory model that is key to ICANN’s legitimacy and to its
international support. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'>Recommendation</span></font></b><span
lang=EN-US>:</span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>ICANN should modify the draft agreements now posted </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>to reflect the applicability of consensus policy, with
the clear understanding that if a consensus policy also has to undergo an
implementation assessment and during that phase, if a registry presents
justification for how consensus policy will harm the registry, result in
anti-competitive situation for one registry over another, or that the costs of
said consensus policy is unreasonable, a proposal can be given to the relevant
Task Force/GNSO Council during the final public comment period about what the
justification for any change might be. By making this a part of a public
process, and allowing review and comment by the Advisory Councils and the
public in an open and transparent way. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'>Conclusion: </span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'> </span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>ICANN should put the negotiations with various
registries that are now underway -- .biz; .info, and .org on hold until the
completion of the PDP 06 and the Council’s submission to the Board
of any policies that are the outcome of PDP 06. And ICANN should fully
resource the PDP 06 work, both with legal staff and support, and with support
to independent experts in competition and economic theory. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>By fulfilling the bottom up consensus policy process,
ICANN will built its credibility and, regardless of the outcomes of the policy
recommendations, will improve the community’s trust in its processes. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Submitted by Marilyn Cade</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'>28-August 06</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'> </span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=4 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
lang=EN-US style='font-size:14.0pt;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>