You will all be aware that the revised dot com agreement has been posted and there is a short window for public comment. I would like to seek your views on whether you consider it appropriate for the ISPCP to post a response through that process. An alternate or an additional option would be to feed back views through the GNSO, as I anticipate quite a high level of debate within Council. Whatever the preferred option, its important we pull together a Constituency opinion, so please comment to the list. The statement submitted on behalf of the ISPCP during the Vancouver meeting which set out our initial concerns was posted to the list and can be used as a reference. From my own perspective it appears that a number of the points we expressed strong views over have not been adequately addressed, but I welcome your input."
The prior ISPCP position:
In the view of the ISPCP it is inappropriate to link the settlement agreement with a new registry agreement
A bilateral agreement between the two parties which result in a non-competitive arrangement, whereby one party has the right to a presumptive renewal, coupled with the guaranteed potential to increase prices annually runs counter to ICANN’s responsibility to the greater community at large
Although it has been stated that the presumptive right of renewal already exists in the current .COM agreement, in fact the reality is that the current renewal terms are not comparable to the ones in the proposed agreement
This provision is tantamount to a guarantee that Verisign is handed total dominance of more than 50% of the name space, together with a guaranteed and continual increase return on capital
The terms of this settlement and the superfluous inclusion of an unrelated issue, the .COM agreement, leads to the perception that ICANN is bending to the demands of one party over the interest of the greater community.