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

Vanda Etges vanda at etges.com.br
Mon Apr 29 23:37:50 UTC 2019


Totally agree Alan, changing of these two relevant posts may change totally the former approach focused on real public interest 

Vanda Scartezini
Sent from my iPad
Sorry for any typos and misspellings

> On 29 Apr 2019, at 13:57, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> 
> 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> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190429/9ed7bfe4/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