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

Justine Chew justine.chew at gmail.com
Mon Feb 11 05:44:39 UTC 2019


Hi Marita,

I added some post-11th hour suggested edits to the googledoc for
consideration. My apologies for their lateness, hoping they will "make the
cut".

Regards,

Justine
-----


On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 06:07, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
wrote:

> That's great,  Marita. You are better at that than some of us (me),
> especially as you are travelling as well.
>
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 5:30 PM Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
>> 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 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 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> 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
>> *To:* Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org> ; 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>
>> 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 | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck |
>> <image001.png>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>> _______________________________________________
>> registration-issues-wg mailing list
>> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20190211/1cc851fa/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