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

Marita Moll mmoll at ca.inter.net
Wed May 1 20:03:49 UTC 2019


Thanks Justine and Greg for putting together this document which I think 
is excellent. Whatever the massaging to finalize item 3 below, in the 
end, it honestly represents our discussions. Grateful to you both for 
this work.

Marita

On 5/1/2019 11:31 AM, Justine Chew 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 <mailto: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 <http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>     <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of
>     Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>             <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:greg at isoc-ny.org>
>>                     President, ISOC-NY
>>                     "The Internet is for everyone"
>>                     _______________________________________________
>>                     CPWG mailing list
>>                     CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
>>                     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>>
>>                 _______________________________________________
>>                 CPWG mailing list
>>                 CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
>>                 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         CPWG mailing list
>>         CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
>>         https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         GTLD-WG mailing list
>>         GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>         <mailto: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 <mailto:greg at isoc-ny.org>
>>     President, ISOC-NY
>>     "The Internet is for everyone"
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     CPWG mailing list
>>     CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     registration-issues-wg mailing list
>>     registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>     <mailto:registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg 
>     _______________________________________________
>     CPWG mailing list
>     CPWG at icann.org <mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/attachments/20190501/44a48aff/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