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

Marita Moll mmoll at ca.inter.net
Sun Feb 10 03:30:34 UTC 2019


Thank you Christopher. I did not go as far as saying the balance of 
interests should be the primary goal, but it is a very important goal 
and I was able to use some of your language here to strengthen our 
section on geopolitical issues.

Marita

On 2/9/2019 12:24 PM, cw at christopherwilkinson.eu wrote:
>
> 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/20190209/1bcf74dd/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