[ALT-Plus] [ALAC-Members] Meeting with other groups in Kobe

Sat Dec 29 09:43:19 UTC 2018

Thank you for your comments.

However, I do not quite understand by "interchangeable good"?  It is being sold, and can be easily resold, just like land.  Thus, although same as land which is not "interchangeable", but it follows the law of supply and demand, and increasing its supply definitly decreases its price.

Looking forward to further discussions.

Thank you, and wish you a happy new year!

Kaili

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Sebastien Bachollet 
  To: Kan Kaili 
  Cc: Sebastien Bachollet ; Maureen Hilyard ; ALAC Members ; ALT-Plus ; Marita Moll 
  Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2018 11:47 AM
  Subject: Re: [ALAC-Members] Meeting with other groups in Kobe

  Hello all,
  Kaili it is definitely not the way I would like ALAC / At-Large and ICANN to go.
  A domaine name is not an interchangeable good.
  All the best
  SeB

    Le 28 déc. 2018 à 15:12, Kan Kaili <kankaili at gmail.com> a écrit :

    This in indeed an interesting issue, and has attracted much discussion within ALAC.  Of course, representing end-users' interests, we at ALAC would be against any ICANN policies that might exploit end-users.

    However, as I see it from an economic point of view, I wonder if trying to block new gTLDs is the best way to protect end-users' interests.  The reason of this is the Law of supply and demand: whenever there is a shortage of supply, there will be an unstopable trend of price going up; whenever there is an over-supply, there will be an unstopable trend of price dropping.  Furthermore, if the over-supply continues, many vendors will withdraw from the market in order to avoid further losses, which in turn decreases supply until supply-demand reaches a new equilibrim at a lower price.  Therefore, the best news for buyers is nothing but a huge over-supply.

    Now as I see it, the DNS is fundamentally a competitive market. (All except ICANN, which is why I want to emphasize its regulator role.)  Furthermore, the gTLD is already facing an over-supply.  This could be seen from the fact that well over half of all new gTLD registrations are being parked primarily for speculation instead of real usage.  This is further enhanced by a shrinking demand of domain names due to the wide spread usage of apps, etc.

    Thus, if we want to get lower prices for end-users, I would prefer unlimited supply of new gTLDs.  As long as the stability of DNS system withholds, I would even not mind a crash of its market.

    Therefore, I would like to suggest a review of ALAC's strategies upon more gTLDs, and maybe even encourage ICANN to eliminate the "rounds".  I strongly believe the contracted parties will learn their lesson soon enough with great regrets.   :)

    This is for further discussions, but maybe closed door.   :)

    Happy New Year to all!

    Kaili

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Marita Moll
      To: Maureen Hilyard ; ALAC-members at icann.org ; alt-plus at icann.org
      Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 10:17 AM
      Subject: Re: [ALAC-Members] Meeting with other groups in Kobe

      Hi Maureen. Here's a possible topic for a session with GNSO. I was reading the International Center for Dispute Resolution case re: Afilias and ICANN and the following information was provided re: GNSO policy recommendations re: the a new gTLD program:

      "The New gTLD Program has produced ICANN’s most ambitious expansion of the Internet’s naming system. Under the Program, any interested party could apply for the opportunity to operate new gTLDs that were not already in use in the DNS, meaning that there was no cap on the number of new gTLDs that could be added to the Internet. The Program was designed to enhance diversity, creativity and consumer choice in gTLDs, and to provide the benefits of innovation to consumers. The Program arose from policy recommendations by ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization (“GNSO”), which were based on community input during the period 2005-2007. On 26 June 2008, the ICANN Board adopted the GNSO’s policy recommendations and directed the ICANN organization to develop an implementation plan for the Program, to be provided to the Board for approval" (italics added)

      Given the fact that At-large is asking if there really is a need/demand for another round, where that demand is coming from and what is the benefit to end users of more gTLDs -- maybe this might be a topic that could be explored. 

      Marita

      On 12/23/2018 9:18 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:

        Hi everyone 

        Hope your plans for Xmas Day are coming along well.. 🎄🎄🎄

        But just before you start celebrating.. can I please ask you to give some thought after Xmas, if you can remember to do so, as to what you would like to ask the following groups, if we were to ask them to come to an ALAC working session.

        GAC - Yrjo and Ana have been working diligently on their topics based on our feedback so we can then work on the how we present these together. We have a session planned with them already.

        ccNSO - Barrack and Wafa are asking the ccNSO If they want to see us, or is there anything that the ALAC wants to know about or of the ccNSO - I know that they have their Review coming up soon. I hope they are preparing better than we did so that there are no surprises 😡 Session still TBC

        SSAC? Andrei has been sending us some interesting reports.. any questions?

        RSSAC?  - did anyone read their Review Report (July 2018) - interesting..

        ASO? have we met with the ASO before? should we? We would have to bring in the 5 RIRs - would need a lot of coordinating. 

        GNSO -  we haven't had a meeting with the GNSO since Heather was appointed. They now have a new leader Keith Drasek.. anyone want to ask Keith anything?

         - and if we do ask anything of anyone, what kind of response are we after? (so its not just a lecture)..

        Just asking....

        Merry Xmas 😊

        Maureen  

_______________________________________________
ALAC-Members mailing list
ALAC-Members at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-members

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

      _______________________________________________
      ALAC-Members mailing list
      ALAC-Members at icann.org
      https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-members

    _______________________________________________
    ALAC-Members mailing list
    ALAC-Members at icann.org
    https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-members

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/private/alt-plus/attachments/20181229/c9f6ad3d/attachment-0001.html>