[GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal
justine.chew at gmail.com
Tue Apr 30 09:52:19 UTC 2019
Understood with thanks, Marita. I constantly struggle to balance competing
arguments, in the form of prima facie views of end-users versus those
touching on less-apparent yet broader policy implications, and I know I am
not alone in this.
While I would much prefer if we could come to a consensus statement with a
common position, but on the likelihood that we cannot reach (clear)
consensus, I can make available for the WG's consideration and further
improvements (for eg. including Olivier's point about registry fees) an
alternate re-draft of Greg's 24 April draft.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 16:11, Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:
> So, perhaps the price cap removal could be delayed until after the market
> impact evaluation process that Greg has outlined in the new proposal was in
> place. Otherwise, there is no incentive to actually proceed with the
> process. I realize that evaluation process was intended for the .org part
> of the package but could apply to all.
> That said, I am mostly concerned with the impact on .org. I know that some
> lobby groups have gone into overdrive over this issue -- but users don't
> respond to these things unless they truly feel threatened. And users have
> responded in droves.
> If we ignore this, whatever the good reasons to release the caps which
> have been put forward here and which I understand, I don't think we are
> listening to end-users.
> On 4/30/2019 9:46 AM, Justine Chew wrote:
> Thanks for the revised draft, Greg.
> I'd rather hope that we could address all 3 .org, .biz. and .info RA
> renewals in a single statement in an attempt to consider inter-connected
> ramifications and while still verbalising support for ISOC without singling
> out the .org RA renewal.
> My personal position is while I don't object to the proposed price cap
> removal because I see some merits in Jonathan's explanation, I think it
> might be worth considering doing so in a less abrupt fashion by deferring
> the price cap removal to give potential and existing registrants
> time/leeway to plan for/react to an eventual price cap removal. My
> proposition here has to do more with the *impact of acquiescing to
> immediate price cap removals* *on the .biz, and .info TLDs*, and by
> extension, on .com and .net TLDs eventually.
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 15:31, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
>> Dear Greg,
>> thanks for this revised draft. However, I deplore that once again my
>> proposal of the Registry fees to ICANN following inflation is still not
>> integrated to this Statement whilst this has received support from CPWG
>> participants and I have heard nobody speaking against this.
>> Kindest regards,
>> On 30/04/2019 07:14, Greg Shatan wrote:
>> I am attaching another, further revised draft public comment on the .ORG
>> renewal, after sifting through the various recent conversations on the
>> list. I will try to circulate a redline in the morning, New York time,
>> but can't right now.
>> I thought about including something on UA, but for .ORG and in the
>> absence of proposed language, I did not see the obvious hook in this
>> statement to bring that concept in.
>> Best regards,
>> 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
>> GTLD-WG mailing listGTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>> Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org
> CPWG mailing listCPWG at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
More information about the GTLD-WG