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

John Laprise jlaprise at gmail.com
Mon Apr 29 17:41:12 UTC 2019


"Thousands of comments"

Coming off of the FCC astroturfing commenting debacle and soberly guessing
that there is a whole community heavily invested in not increasing costs, I
would caution that weight of numbers is not telling, especially in a
convenience sample.

Sent from my Pixel 3XL

John Laprise, Ph.D.

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 7:52 AM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> 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> 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> 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
> >>>>
> >>>> 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> 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 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
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registration-issues-wg/attachments/20190429/1aa1d714/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