[GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Fwd: FW: Draft Comment on RA Renewals

Greg Shatan greg at isoc-ny.org
Mon Apr 29 05:58:28 UTC 2019


Siva,

I don’t disagree with you. ISOC’s mission is much broader than ICANN, much
less At-Large.  I am as trying to say that At-Large should view ISOC with a
certain kinship, based on shared values and support for priorities that
ultimately benefit the end-users — the Internet is for everyone!

 But the broad spectrum of activities and priorities that ISOC has goes far
beyond At-Large’s “band.”

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 1:33 AM sivasubramanian muthusamy <
6.internet at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 10:44 AM Greg Shatan <greg at isoc-ny.org> wrote:
>
>> I would be happy, Marita, to beef up the last line of the comment and
>> make that aspect more substantial generally!   Please send your editorial
>> suggestions.  As for what ICANN should do, one possibility is that ICANN
>> reserves the right to roll back price increases, in whole or in part, if
>> the price hikes are abusive or discriminatory.
>>
>> All, I still hope that there is room for a comment here.  It would be
>> particularly unfortunate if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal.
>> Roberto’s email encapsulates many of the reasons why.  I look at ISOC as
>> almost
>>
>
> a sister organization of At-Large.
>>
>
> No. Please don't equate ISOC with one Constituency of ICANN. Rather,
> ISOC's mission is larger than the DNS. While ICANN perceives limitations in
> it's mission, ISOC's policies and programs span way beyond, and what ISOC
> does results in what is good for the DNS.
>
> As Roberto points out, ISOC works to accomplish many goals that it shares
>> with At-Large.  ISOC also supports the IETF and even provides its corporate
>> “home.”   PIR runs on similar principles.  PIR is not a run of the mill
>> commercial registry.  In many ways, it was put into business by ISOC.  Yet
>> the essence of the concerted campaign against .ORG is that PIR can’t be
>> trusted to abstain from massive price increases, that ISOC could and
>> possibly would push it to do so, and that ISOC is a parasitical
>> organization sucking money out of other non-profits. I feel like we would
>> be throwing ISOC under the bus if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal in
>> particular.  [Disclosure: I am the President & Chair of an At Large
>> Structure that is also an ISOC Chapter, ISOC-NY.]
>>
>> Originally, my draft dealt only with .org.  We could just go back to that
>> focus.  We can leave a general discussion of price caps to one side if we
>> don’t expand this to .biz and .info (and .asia doesn’t have price caps now).
>>
>> Based on the discussions we had, I aimed to limit the comment to the
>> concrete issues raised by the agreement rather than go beyond the agreement
>> to some of the broader registry issues.  But that’s a question of approach
>> and I’m fine with a broader statement.   Alternatively, we could decide not
>> to comment on .biz and .info at all, limit the current statement to .org,
>> and put in a brief UA statement for .asia.   But first we would have to get
>> any drafts, revisions, etc. out on the table so we can see what we’re
>> dealing with.
>>
>> Even asking for an extension is a double-edged sword, since that keeps
>> the doors open for more of the cut-and-paste comments that have been filed
>> in opposition to these renewals.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 2:34 AM Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I am reading powerful arguments on both sides of this issue and then
>>> reading Greg's proposed comment again. In the particular case of .org, and
>>> should we decide to go in the direction that Greg has mapped, would it be
>>> possible to beef up the last line. It seems like a throw away but it could
>>> be a good bridge between the opposing points of view. The comment asks that
>>> ICANN "monitor" future price increases and any market responses to those
>>> increases. What should ICANN do if it decides the increases are unwarranted?
>>>
>>> @Christopher -- eh bien, le poisson est encore vivant !!
>>>
>>>
>>> Marita
>>> On 4/26/2019 5:41 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>>
>>> Justine,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your kind words and helpful comments.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, the “party” got rained out.  The CPWG decided not to
>>> approve this statement, whether it covers all the renewals or is limited to
>>> .ORG.  So nothing is being sent to the ALAC for their consideration. I
>>> think it’s a good statement, and it would be made better with your
>>> suggestions.  I am considering revising this draft, cutting the subject
>>> back to .ORG and submitting it individually.  Also, circulating it for
>>> others to submit — either individually or with multiple signatures.
>>>
>>> In particular, I am concerned there are a number of comments being made
>>> that tend to denigrate PIR and ISOC.  This is something I would like to
>>> counter.  [Full disclosure: I am the President of ISOC-NY (an At-Large
>>> Structure) and participate here in that capacity.  However, I have not yet
>>> asked the ISOC-NY Board to consider endorsing this statement, so I am
>>> discussing it here in my individual capacity.]. I honestly think much of
>>> what has been said about PIR and ISOC has been untrue or exaggerated and
>>> fails to to give credit to ISOC for its mission and unique place in the
>>> internet ecosystem.
>>>
>>> I believe that PIR was hoping for a comment along the lines of our first
>>> draft (which I believe they saw on our site) or our second draft.  I’m not
>>> comfortable leaving PIR and ISOC to be “thrown under the bus” by
>>> ill-informed and prejudicial comments.  If ALAC will not comment (or more
>>> precisely, if the CPWG wont send ALAC a draft comment for their
>>> consideration), then it behooves those who support this statement to submit
>>> it or use it as a basis for their own comments.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:02 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks to Greg Shatan for the 24 April draft statement.
>>>>
>>>> My comments / suggestion are as follows:-
>>>>
>>>> 1. I wonder if it might be better to prepare (and submit) 2 statements
>>>> instead of a consolidated one ie. one to address .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO and
>>>> another for .ASIA.. This is because .ASIA had a "different playing field of
>>>> no price caps" to begin with and in this way, any concerns about price cap
>>>> removals for .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO can be addressed squarely in comparison
>>>> with .NET and with reference to the ALAC's 2017 comment. Given that we
>>>> don't seem to be offering comments to the inclusion of some RPMs.
>>>>
>>>> 2. In any case, the draft starts with "Background" but doesn't indicate
>>>> where that backgrounder ends and where the present comment begins.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Related to the point about standardizing RAs as being a good
>>>> approach, it be useful to draw attention to the use of Addendums as the
>>>> controlled means for handling necessary variations.
>>>>
>>>> 4. Would it not be incumbent on At-Large to also support (or least
>>>> comment on) regularizing the inclusion of PICs in these RA renewals (if
>>>> any)?
>>>>
>>>> 5. As for UA, it's not clear (to me at least) what we want all ROs to
>>>> do about it at this point. Given community interest on UA has increased
>>>> further in recent meetings, actual responsibilities might be better framed
>>>> in due course. So, it may be prudent to tackle the inclusion of UA into the
>>>> base Registry Agreement by amending Specification 6, or possibly by way of
>>>> a consensus policy addition in Specification 1, at a later date.
>>>>
>>>> Justine
>>>> (my apologies for being late to the "party")
>>>>
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 04:15, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu at icann.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you Greg; this draft ALAC Statement on the 4 Registry Agreement
>>>>> Public Comments is posted to each workspace, for comment:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .biz Registry Agreement
>>>>> <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Proposed+Renewal+of+.biz+Registry+Agreement>
>>>>>
>>>>> At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .asia Registry Agreement
>>>>> <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Proposed+Renewal+of+.asia+Registry+Agreement>
>>>>>
>>>>> At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
>>>>> <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Proposed+Renewal+of+.org+Registry+Agreement>
>>>>>
>>>>> At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .info Registry Agreement
>>>>> <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Proposed+Renewal+of+.info+Registry+Agreement>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Evin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From: *GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf
>>>>> of Greg Shatan <greg at isoc-ny.org>
>>>>> *Date: *Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:44 PM
>>>>> *To: *CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu at icann.org>,
>>>>> Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
>>>>> *Subject: *[GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Fwd: FW: Draft Comment on RA Renewals
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Please see attached.*
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg Shatan
>>>>>
>>>>> greg at isoc-ny.org
>>>>>
>>>>> President, ISOC-NY
>>>>>
>>>>> *"The Internet is for everyone"*
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> CPWG mailing list
>>>>> CPWG at icann.org
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CPWG mailing list
>>>> CPWG at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> GTLD-WG mailing list
>>>> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>>>>
>>>> Working Group direct URL:
>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
>>>
>>> --
>>> Greg Shatan
>>> greg at isoc-ny.org
>>> President, ISOC-NY
>>> *"The Internet is for everyone"*
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CPWG mailing listCPWG at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CPWG mailing list
>>> CPWG at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GTLD-WG mailing list
>>> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>>>
>>> Working Group direct URL:
>>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
>>
>> --
>> Greg Shatan
>> greg at isoc-ny.org
>> President, ISOC-NY
>> *"The Internet is for everyone"*
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>> _______________________________________________
>>
> registration-issues-wg mailing list
>> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>>
> --
Greg Shatan
greg at isoc-ny.org
President, ISOC-NY
*"The Internet is for everyone"*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/attachments/20190429/bf7ca4b6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg


More information about the GTLD-WG mailing list