Dear Milton,
Thanks for your reply.
I had a few follow up questions: first, do you disagree with the fact that Verisign is a monopoly? Second, if having certainty over ownership is the goal, why not have a reasonable expectation of renewal with a mandatory re-bid, as has been proposed several times in the past? Doesn't the competition aspect suffer under the existing presumptive renewal framework?
Vidushi
On 30/05/17 22:36, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> I don't agree. Presumptive renewal is not inconsistent with market mechanisms. Markets are based on secure property rights, and if the registrant of a TLD has no certainty regarding their ownership of the TLD they will tend to exploit it for quick bucks and not invest in it for the long term. Presumptive renewal allows the owners of a business to continue to benefit from something they have invested in and developed the value of. There are nearly 1500 alternative TLDs to .NET, not counting ccTLDs, so the idea that .NET is a monopoly is not consistent with any serious definition of monopoly.
>
> What many people may not realize is that the idea of bidding out TLDs every renewal period is just the brainchild of other businesses who are hungry for the guaranteed business already developed by .NET (and .COM).
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vidushi Marda [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 2:45 AM
> > To: Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]>; NCSG-
> > [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Proposed comment on .NET RA
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > In the NCSG comment, wouldn't it be important to mention how this
> > presumptive renewal goes against ICANN's core values of using market
> > mechanisms to promote a competitive environment and promoting
> > competition to benefit the public interest?
> >
> > Renewing the contract without an open tender is perpetuating a monopoly
> > of a close to a billion dollars. It doesn't help that ICANN gets a substantial
> > amount of money from verisign either - see here:
> > https://twitter.com/VidushiMarda/status/656041061278609408
> >
> > Curious to hear your thoughts!
> >
> > Vidushi
> >
> > On 29/05/17 19:52, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> >> I have reviewed the comments and support them. Thanks to those who
> >> took the initiative to develop these comments!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --MM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On
> > Behalf
> >> Of *Ayden Férdeline
> >> *Sent:* Sunday, May 28, 2017 4:08 AM
> >> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> >> *Subject:* Fw: Proposed comment on .NET RA
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Greetings, all-
> >>
> >> Ed Morris has kindly drafted a comment on behalf of the NCSG on the
> >> .NET Renewal Agreement. Over the coming days the Policy Committee will
> >> consider endorsing it. If you have any comments or suggested edits,
> >> please feel free to comment on the Google Doc itself (link in the
> >> email chain below, along with a summary of the issue) or in this
> >> thread. As the submission deadline is Tuesday, please comment by
> >> Monday if you have anything that you would like the Policy Committee
> >> to be aware of. Thank you!
> >>
> >> Best wishes,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ayden Férdeline
> >>
> >> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -------- Original Message --------
> >>
> >> Subject: Proposed comment on .NET RA
> >>
> >> Local Time: May 28, 2017 3:13 AM
> >>
> >> UTC Time: May 28, 2017 2:13 AM
> >>
> >> From: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> >>
> >> To: Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]
> >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Poncelet Ileleji <[log in to unmask]
> >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> >>
> >> ncsg-pc <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi everybody,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> During our most recent Policy Committee meeting we decided that we
> >> were not going to submit a comment on the .NET Renewal Agreement.
> >> For the first time in years ICANN was presenting a legacy gTLD
> >> renewal agreement that wasn’t noxious. Specifically, there was no
> >> effort to expand the URS and PDDP into the legacy gTLDs thus
> >> creating de facto consensus policy by staff negotiated contract.
> >> This is an issue the NCSG has been very vocal about in the past. In
> >> fact, we did a joint comment on it with the Business Constituency
> >> (BC) that created a bit of a stir in the industry press
> >> (http://domainincite.com/19450-odd-couple-coalition-wants-urs-
> > deleted-from-legacy-gtld-contracts
> >> ).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Well, I now think we should submit a public comment on the
> >> Agreement. To support it. The IPC has rallied its troops to try to
> >> convince the Board to require the inclusion of the URS and PDDP in
> >> the RA.
> >> (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-net-renewal-
> > 20apr17/attachments/20170521/d67e3bb5/INTAdotNETRenewalFINAL05-21-
> > 17-0001.pdf
> >> ). I don’t think we need to have an elaborate comment but I do think
> >> we need to show the flag. When ICANN finally does something we’ve
> >> been pressing them to do for a few years we should acknowledge it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I’ve started a Google Doc here:
> >>
> >>
> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Et_G0aHmhgYlHu8gC95RkXrJ6LeJea
> > BTRe
> >> GExS_T2kg/edit
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I’ve restricted the initial comment to two items:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 1. Commending ICANN and Verisign for agreeing to let Consensus
> >> Policies dictate IP protection requirements rather than imposing the
> >> staff created new gTLD RPM’s on .NET, and
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2. Supporting creation of a special fund using proceeds from the
> >> Registry-Level Transaction Fees to support developing country
> >> stakeholders participation at ICANN ( as the funds aren’t segregated
> >> I have suggested we ask the Board to annually report on the use of
> >> these monies – to ensure they are being spent as intended) .
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> These are both traditional NCSG positions and I hope we can quickly
> >> reach agreement on them. Overall, I believe it’s a good agreement
> >> and it is certainly much better than the last few RA’s. I have a few
> >> quibbles about some of the pricing arrangements but in an effort to
> >> keep the comment short and focused on the IP issue, and to quickly
> >> get consensus here, I thought it best to forgo commenting on them.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Comment is due in Tuesday midnight. I hope we can get PC sign off by
> >> then.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ed
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
|
