Navigation Home Issues & Papers My Writings My Music My Photo Portfolio Travel Schedule Administrivia Random Bytes blogTrivia Pop Byte.org   See Also Tucows ICANN R'rar Constituency My Hotlinks... My Yahoo! ICANNWatch ICANN Blog Slashdot That Nasty Site NewsHub The Archives January 2003 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat       1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31   Dec   Feb Send Me Email

All the news that's... whatever. Welcome to Random Bytes... Over the last few years I've spent a great deal of time working within the ICANN process in an attempt to generally make things better. Those of you that know me already know that I work for Tucows, an ICANN accredited registrar. Our corporate philosophy as it relates to public policy is very simple: what is good for the Internet is good for Tucows. We've not always been successful in picking out what is in the best interests of the Internet, but we've always proceeded in good faith rooted in a belief that ICANN is good for the Internet and that we (that's the collective "we", the Internetizen "we") somehow have to find  a way to make it work. Unfortunately, what is good for the Internet is seldom easy to achieve or commercially satisfying in today's tough economic environment where quarterly results and short-term profits are the harsh yardsticks that enterprises are measured by. Its impossible to tell a shareholder or investor that the five year picture looks a lot better than last quarters YOY results - at least not if you want them to listen. ICANN's General Counsel, Louis Touton, recently posted a briefing that outlined how and why consensus policy is important in the context of the various agreements that make binding the various policies that ICANN has adopted. In it, he very plainly states that gTLD Registrars and Registries cannot simply be "forced" to adopt a policy if it meets one of the five following tests; The policy is developed in a way that gathers consensus support from Internet stakeholders represented in the ICANN process, including registrars and registry operators. The policy is limited to one of the narrower topics for which registrars or registry operators have expressly agreed to adhere to revised policies. (In the case of registrars, one such topic is the specification of data elements displayed in Whois.) If the policy can be implemented by action of registry operators only, the affected registry operators specifically agree to implement the policy. In some cases, a policy involving both registry operators and registrars can be implemented by a change to the registry-registrar agreement that can be accomplished through the joint action of ICANN and the registry operator. See, for example, Section 6.1(a) of VeriSign's registry-registrar agreement. If the policy is to be implemented by registrars, the affected registrars specifically agree to implement the policy. If the policy can be phased in over a period of several years, the policy can be incorporated into provisions of ICANN's agreements with registrars and registry operators at the time their agreements come up for renewal. In the case of registrars (who have five-year agreements), the existing agreements provide that any change in policies reflected in the renewed agreement must have been adopted according to the consensus policy provisions. All of this makes a lot of sense, and none of it is new. What is interesting about this brief and the points that it makes relates to the timing of the brief. This brief follows on the heels of two important interim reports from Names Council Task Forces; Whois and Transfers. Each of these task forces has been mired in the policy development process for at least two years each. Given that each task force consists of at least one member from each of the Constituencies and the GA and that each task force puts in roughly one hour of collaborative work a week - we are talking about at least six person-months of effort. Not an insignificant amount of time to devote to the development of policy, especially when you realize that these numbers are extremely conservative. Each of these task forces has brought forward their own well-considered reports. Whether these reports are ready to be moved forward as policy is another matter completely, but it cannot be said that the reports as they stand today were crafted in some sort of an arbitrary vaccuum in an attempt to further the agenda of a self-interested group of stakeholders. The Transfers Task Force Interim Report is a great example of how consensus in a group of varied interests can be achieved. Much of the work of the Task Force has focused on refining an earlier proposition that was adopted almost unanimously by the Registrar Constituency. This proposal was developed over the period of several months and input from all quarters was sought. In fact, the original drafting team including myself, representing Tucows and Elana Broitman, representing Register.com. Suffice to say that prior to the drafting effort, our respective firms had little common ground on the issues. Nevertheless, we were still able to talk through the salient points and arrive at a point where we were both comfortable tabling the document for official adoption by the constituency. For those of you not familiar with the processes used by the Registrar Constituency, some explanation might be in order. Despite the laid-back nature and often disorganized Were it not for the unyielding opposition of Register.com and Verisign, the proposal would have passed with the complete support of the constituency membership.     © Copyright 2003 Ross Wm. Rader. The opinions expressed in this weblog are solely those of the respective authors. Last update: 1/27/2003; 11:22:32 PM.