having pb with wifi. as soon as i can, will send this to Liz as our input the PDP?? pls send edits comments if any, in the next couple of hrs, thx --- [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > NCUC Task Force Members' Preliminary Discussion of "Contractual Conditions > of Existing gTLDs" > > These are preliminary positions developed by the NCUC Task Force members. > They are put forward to stimulate discussion and debate, both within NCUC > and across other constituencies. > > > 1. Registry agreement renewals > > We believe that it is in the public interest for there to be a renewal > expectancy for parties who have been delegated generic top-level domains. > By "renewal expectancy" we mean that those who were originally assigned a > top level domain should retain the assignment unless there is a significan > t problem, such as criminal activity, breach of contract, repeated failure > to meet service standards, or serious noncompliance with applicable ICANN > rules and policies. In this view, reassignment of the domain is punishment > for malfeasance -- not an attempt to run a periodic beauty contest to > determine who is the "best" operator. > > We believe that presumptive renewal as described above is required for a > long-term view of value-creation and investment in a domain name and the > associated infrastructure. Continuity and stable expectations about who > will be in control is required for the development of a community. This > is especially true for sponsored or nonprofit domains. Operators who > succeed in creating value, identity or a community around a domain should > not have that taken out from under them. They should be able to reap the > benefits of their creation of value, and be able to build on it into the > future. > > We accept the importance of the principle of competition. We do not, > however, believe that it requires taking established domains and throwing > them up for grabs every five years or so when there are no major problems > with the operation of a domain. Registrar-level competition helps to > ensure that retail services associated with any gTLD registry will be > competitive, and cross-gTLD diversity will ensure users a variety of > naming alternatives (or "intermodal" competition). Those are the most > important forms of competition. Reassigning a gTLD simply substitutes one > operator with exclusive control of the domain for another. While this can > put pressure on the incumbent to perform better in a short-term time > horizon, we believe that on the whole the amount of time and resources > spent on fighting over the control of the domain would outweigh the > prospective benefits. We also note that achieving improved performance > from a new operator can only be a promise, and that transfers of control > inherently involve costs and risks. > > > 2. Relationship between registry agreements and consensus policies > > This is an issue that NCUC feels has not been discussed or debated > adequately. Our only point is that we must distinguish carefully between > the problems raised by one dominant operator's registry agreement (.com) > and policies that are appropriate as a general rule for all rgeistries. > We look forward to listening to the views of other constituencies and the > public on this question. > > We believe that existing sponsored domains should retain the policy-making > authority. We say this not because we support the concept of sponsored > domains per se, but because we support greater diversity and decentralizat > ion of policy making authority. > > > 3. Policy for price controls for registry services > > We recognize that price caps can be justified as a way of protecting > consumers in markets with high switching costs. Domain name registrations > do have high switching costs. Rather than making specific policy > recommendations, we make these observations: > > a) We must not assume that ICANN contracts are the proper mechanism for > price controls. Regulatory authorities in national governments have some > ability to respond to this problem, either through antitrust laws or > through sector-specific regulations. We believe that the === Message Truncated ===