[GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Yet Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal to also cover .BIZ and .INFO Renewals

Cheryl Langdon-Orr langdonorr at gmail.com
Wed May 1 19:48:06 UTC 2019


Excellent ... Thanks to *all* the contributors *and*, of course, the
drafters and primary 'pen holders' on this comment, it is not only
something I can support but also an excellent example of why the CPWG
exists...

<https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
<https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>


On Thu, 2 May 2019 at 04:52, Greg Shatan <greg at isoc-ny.org> wrote:

> Justine,
>
> Thank you so much for keeping the ball rolling!  I will pick it up again
> shortly.
>
> Greg
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 9:34 AM Judith Hellerstein <judith at jhellerstein.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Justine for the revised draft and for the inclusion of UA into the
>> comments which is something I have been suggesting. It looks good
>>
>> Best
>> Judith
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> Judith at jhellerstein.com
>> Skype ID:Judithhellerstein
>>
>> On May 1, 2019, at 8:57 AM, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you Justine, Greg and all for a well thoughtful statement.
>> Also for the inclusion of a clause on the UA, which I believe is
>> important as it goes with ICANN direction of the new strategy.
>> Nadira
>>
>> On Wed, May 1, 2019, 12:32 Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> Firstly, I note that there may well be more than 1 email thread within
>>> the CPWG mail list discussing the .ORG RA renewal (and/or other RA
>>> renewals). So, there is a certainly the chance I have not been able to
>>> follow every one of them.
>>>
>>> Secondly, I am responding (partly) to *Bastiaan's and Holly's* request
>>> for a re-draft of Greg's 30 April draft, and *Olivier's* request
>>> regarding registry fees payable to ICANN Org, which I have (almost)
>>> completed, and attach herewith is my two-cents' worth copy of the re-draft
>>> (marked as v4, and both redlined and clean copies). The reasons I say
>>> "partly" and "almost" are as follows:-
>>>
>>> 1. I have removed all references to .asia as there is an existing draft
>>> statement specifically for the .asia RA renewal, prepared by *Maureen*.
>>>
>>> 2. Thanking Greg for incorporating my suggestion to include a reference
>>> in support of the regularization of PICs into the proposed RA renewals, I
>>> have since suggested that we also support the regularization of a few other
>>> aspects in the RA renewals. These, including that of PICs, are set out
>>> under section (I) of the copy.
>>>
>>> 3. In respect of price cap debate, I have now set out the different
>>> opinions and bases in section (II) including a third which suggests a
>>> deferment of the price cap removal with conditions. However, section (II)
>>> is incomplete because:-
>>> (a) As this point, I still do not know the conclusion for the group
>>> supporting removing price caps.
>>> (b) I will qualify by saying that I do not know if the suggestion to
>>> defer removal is intrinsically linked to one (or more) request for economic
>>> study or not. Instead I have based the deferment suggestion on the notion
>>> of fairness.
>>>
>>> As such, the key portions touching on these two points are marked in
>>> yellow highlights for ease of locating.
>>>
>>> 4. I have included under section (III) the request for registry fees
>>> payable to ICANN Org to be adjusted for inflation on an *annual basis
>>> and for this adjustment to also be adopted in the base RA*.
>>> Olivier/others should indicate whether section (III) is acceptable.
>>>
>>> 5. I have also included under section (IV) a comment about UA which I
>>> think is general enough to be relevant.
>>>
>>> *I am handing this v4 over to Greg for settling since he is the
>>> designated penholder in this case. Thanks, Greg!*
>>>
>>> Thank you all in advance for your consideration. I am hoping that the
>>> attachments will get through the mailing list. If not, please refer to the
>>> relevant wiki workspace:
>>> https://community.icann.org/x/-oSGBg
>>>
>>> Justine Chew
>>> -----
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 16:49, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, despite presumptive renewal, ICANN is under no obligation to renew
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan Zuck
>>>> Executive Director
>>>> Innovators Network Foundation
>>>> www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of
>>>> Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:43:12 AM
>>>> *To:* Greg Shatan; Maureen Hilyard
>>>> *Cc:* CPWG
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Further
>>>> Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal
>>>>
>>>> The problem with a post-removal study is what do you do if you find
>>>> things have gone south. What is the recourse?
>>>>
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>> At 30/04/2019 12:50 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> A few responses to the various earlier emails.
>>>>
>>>> @Ricardo, Good point.  I think it makes sense to call for several
>>>> studies over time, rather than a single study.
>>>>
>>>> @Olivier, My omission of your contribution was an oversight, not a
>>>> conclusion that the view lacked support or was off-topic.  My apologies. I,
>>>> for one, would be happy to add something on Registry fees to the draft.
>>>> Please provide text or point me to the best iteration of your suggested
>>>> text (which I missed, sadly).  Or I can take what is in Justine’s draft.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I am not in favor of doing an economic study before
>>>> removing the price cap.  As Jonathan notes, this work has already been
>>>> done.  My thought was to have a study done in “real time,†based on
>>>> observing the domain name market(s) after the caps were lifted, so that the
>>>> effects could be accurately observed and analyzed, and used to inform
>>>> future action.  Predictive studies are by their nature speculative, and can
>>>> more easily be bent in one direction or the other.. They tend to be more
>>>> successful and reliable when the study structure and method is
>>>> well-understood and time-tested (e.g., a pre-merger analysis).  A
>>>> predictive study here may prove far less reliable and useful, given the
>>>> number of variables and inputs and the novelty of the study.  I also think
>>>> it’s an unrealistic request.  But as penholder, I will draft whatever the
>>>> consensus becomes.
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:11 PM Maureen Hilyard <
>>>> maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Thank you, John. I think a consensus call on the document will be
>>>> required  from this session because the extension we requested closes soon
>>>> after and Evin has to prepare the doc for submission. We can do
>>>> ratification by the ALAC after the fact but a recorded consensus would be
>>>> helpful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> M
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:50 AM John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Maureen,
>>>>
>>>> In the event that you're not at tomorrow's meeting, do you want me to
>>>> take any action on your behalf as vice chair?
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my Pixel 3XL
>>>>
>>>> John Laprise, Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 9:59 AM Maureen Hilyard <
>>>> maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I like this version Greg .
>>>>
>>>> In case I can't make tomorrow's CPWG meeting.  I believe the new
>>>> version provides a good compromise of the different views that have been
>>>> presented by the CPWG discussants. I like the idea of an economic study as
>>>> well as Marita's suggestion to delay any change until the results of such a
>>>> study were revealed.
>>>> I also prefer putting the RAs under one umbrella statement. The
>>>> separate .asia statement reinforces support for the inclusion of UA.
>>>> Anything else that is relevant would be in the general ALAC RA statement.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 8:14 PM Greg Shatan <greg at isoc-ny.org> wrote:
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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"*
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/attachments/20190502/3b4b2b30/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