[registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] URGENT: Strategic Plan Comments

Jonathan Zuck JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org
Sat Feb 9 20:29:39 UTC 2019


Let’s hash this out Sunday morning in Kobe. Looking forward to it!

From: cw at christopherwilkinson.eu <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>
Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2019 3:24 PM
To: cpwg at icann.org
Cc: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>; Kan Kaili <kankaili at gmail.com>; Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net>; Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] URGENT: Strategic Plan Comments

Good evening :
Thankyou for these comments.
@ Maureen : In my view, the principal and priority issue in ICANN's strategic plan is to maintain the credibility and global acceptability of the multi-stakeholder system. Ensuring that there is a permanent balance in the ICANN decision making processes respecting the public interest, is an essential factor to that effect. In practice ALAC is the only multi-stakeholder entity that is able to achieve that. Otherwise, if ICANN continues to be driven primarily by the interests of incumbent operators, sooner or later the multi-stakeholder model will crack, for lack of international acceptability.

Consequently I maintain that the issue of economic balance of interests within the multi-stakeholder community should be up front as a primary strategic objective for ICANN.org<http://ICANN.org> and the ICANN Community., supported, indeed demanded by ALAC.

@Kalil : Noted ; I am aware of what you say, but it is not correct. Whether we call ICANN a 'regulator' or not, (or something else in another language), I don't care, but the fact is that the power that the ICANN Community and ICANN.org<http://ICANN.org> exercise over the allocation of DNS resources and the operators' business models exceeds that of official Regulators in several other sectors. For example, the ITU's powers over spectrum ; the national telecommunications Regulators over mobile phone licenses etc.
Consequently,. I maintain my position.

Thanks and Regards to you all,

CW




On 9 Feb 2019, at 20:06, Kan Kaili <kankaili at gmail.com<mailto:kankaili at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi, Christopher,

Regarding the point of "ICANN's credibility as the DNS Regulator", ICANN does not even admit itself as a "regulator", not to say to enhance its credibility as regulator.  Thus, I would first propose ICANN to make clear about what exactly ICANN is before enforcing its anything.

Kaili



----- Original Message -----
From:cw at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>
To: Jonathan Zuck<mailto:JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org> ; cpwg at icann.org<mailto:cpwg at icann.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2019 5:10 AM
Subject: Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] URGENT: Strategic Plan Comments

Dear Jonathan, Dear Friends and Colleagues :
I hav read the draft ALAC response to the ICANN Strategic Plan. I appreciate and commend the work, effort and understanding of the rapporteurs to this effect.
Your having requested comments, I would say that there is one paragraph in the draft that I would wish to see reinforced and emphasised. Under :

2. Improve the effectiveness of ICANN’s mulltistakeholder model of governance.
I would wish to see a stronger statement that ICANN's credibility as the DNS Regulator requires greater efforts to ensure the balance of interests notably with regard to users and the public interest. In this context, I refer specifically to the comment received by the new gTLD PDP from the Public Interest Community :
<< 5. In setting up a host of 'procedural changes' that amount to a capture of the New gTLD Process by large incumbent portfolio applicants … This set of self-interested procedural initiatives defy the original goals of the new gTLD process. … These … goals will not be achieved by many of the policies being proposed which appear designed to support the drafters – largely incumbent registries… >>
I consider that ALAC should give positive support to the concerns voiced by the Public Interest Community, not least because At Large is the only multistakeholder constituency with the presence and mandate to ensure the balance of interests in the PDP for the users and the public interest.

In this context may I recall my previous postings about the essential benchmarks of the public interest in the new gTLD PDP:
1.  Incumbent operators should not be allowed to determine the terms and conditions of access to TLDs by new entrants.
2. 'Portfolio' applications should be strongly discouraged, if not banned.
3. The economic rent to a 'Good Name' should accrue to the Registrant(s). They should not be burdened by fees and charges arising, notably, from auctions. The Registry has no business paying for, nor seeking compensation for, artificially excessive costs of registering a new TLD. The costs to Registrants should be moderated in consequence.
I would be glad if the above considerations were included in the ALAC response to the Strategic Plan.

Could I also  say that, otherwise, ALAC may appear -  to the outside world - as complicit in a degree of unhealthy collusion among the incumbent operators. This should not go on.

Regards to you all

Christopher Wilkinson


On 8 Feb 2019, at 16:30, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote:

Folks,
Maureen and Bastien have done a great job with drafting At-large comments on the Strategic Plan but they haven’t received enough feedback. Please take a look and comment by Sunday! Here are the comments:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LHZ56WJUHuqglhsDySKqqLCc_PxvyuwXgCzonwVNj2k/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1LHZ56WJUHuqglhsDySKqqLCc-5FPxvyuwXgCzonwVNj2k_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=HedNXfBayuWxdPer7COiCJBd39KxvJQIgCaiDYF2Tm8&m=uy7SvY89O9H3z0YmVlyAVsMgkjQ2eULo_VhvccfCziY&s=SI8CpaqgFd9xyT0-T89vi8IesD7azsexcUu_DlZuRHI&e=>
Thanks!
Jonathan
Jonathan Zuck |  Executive Director  |  Innovators Network
jzuck at innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:jzuck at innovatorsnetwork.org> | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck |
<image001.png>
_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registration-issues-wg/attachments/20190209/4c39931c/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