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

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Apr 29 16:57:07 UTC 2019


In my mind, the issue, particularly for .ORG, is two-fold

1. ICANN's determination to have uniform Registry Agreements. This is reasonable from a purely administrative point of view, despite it not being followed for .NET. But I will point out that this is an administrative and contract issue and has never, in my recollection, been subject to a community decision. ANd indeed the .NET example demonstrates that it is not an absolute.

2. .ORG is targetted (if not limited) to organizations that generally are in the public interest, and thus of interest to At-Large. There are somewhat over 10 million of them and it is reasonable to presume that many million of them are public-service type organizations that have registered under .ORG based on its perceived focus area but may well have presumed that the price they paid to start would not increase radically.

PIR has regularly raised prices in the past. Although they have not raised prices recently, they now have a new CEO and a new Chair of the Board. Given that, past behaviour is NOT necessarily a predictor of future actions.

Alan


At 29/04/2019 09:19 AM, Marita Moll wrote:

I don't think the matter is closed with respect to whether or not At-large was submitting a comment. I believe the e-mail list and the calls function together, not independently from each other. Not everyone can always make the calls. And many prefer to put their thoughts down on the list.

So, yes, tomorrow on our call, we will have a lot more information and much better idea where our community stands as the discussion continues

Marita
On 4/29/2019 2:50 PM, George Kirikos wrote:


We already agreed on last week's call that folks can submit
individual
comments, and At-Large wouldn't be submitting a comment. I disagree
with the attempt to relitigate that issue. And Jonathan Zuck said we
should table the email discussion, see:


https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2019-April/001099.html

yet I see more and more folks (including Jonathan himself) making new
arguments by email:


https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2019-April/001116.html

which I obviously disagree with (as do the thousands of individuals
and organizations who've actually submitted comments already).

It's not as though ISOC hasn't been "heard" -- they were a
**party**
to the negotiations with ICANN (given their ownership of PIR). Their
views are already known.

If this was a .com renewal agreement open for public comment, Verisign
wouldn't be commenting on it, obviously.

See you on tomorrow's call.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/


On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 1:14 AM Greg Shatan
<greg at isoc-ny.org><mailto: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.  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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .asia Registry Agreement

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .info Registry Agreement



Kind Regards,

Evin



From: GTLD-WG

<gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Greg
Shatan <greg at isoc-ny.org><mailto:greg at isoc-ny.org>
Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:44 PM
To: CPWG <cpwg at icann.org><mailto:cpwg at icann.org>, Evin
Erdogdu
<evin.erdogdu at icann.org><mailto:evin.erdogdu at icann.org>
, Jonathan Zuck

<JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org><mailto: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<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
_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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



_______________________________________________
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://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registration-issues-wg/attachments/20190429/21e78bac/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg


More information about the registration-issues-wg mailing list