[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Fwd: FW: Draft Comment on RA Renewals
Marita Moll
mmoll at ca.inter.net
Mon Apr 29 06:17:58 UTC 2019
In the interests brokering some kind of comprise, I take up Greg's offer
to make a suggestion on beefing up the last sentence of his proposal re:
ICANN monitoring the impact of price increases.
I would suggest retaining the price caps but raising them slightly and
then have a periodic review that could either raise or lower the caps.
e.g. price cap raised to 12% (15?) and reviewed after 5 )10?) years.
That would make everybody equally unhappy. Good political compromise.
My second choice would be Greg's suggestion that ICANN reserve the right
to roll back price increases deemed to be abusive -- but rolling back
price increases would be really controversial if it ever came to pass.
In addition, I would limit the statement to .org and add the comment
already put forward by Maureen re: .asia. I have not seen any strong
arguments for retaining price caps on .biz .info. I think throwing all
these thing together in one pot has been disingenuous. I realize the
goal was standardization but the timing seems to be wrong.
Marita
On 4/29/2019 7:14 AM, Greg Shatan 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>> <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Proposed+Renewal+of+.biz+Registry+Agreement>
>>
>> At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .asia Registry
>> Agreement
>> <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Proposed+Renewal+of+.asia+Registry+Agreement>
>>
>> At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .org Registry
>> Agreement
>> <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Proposed+Renewal+of+.org+Registry+Agreement>
>>
>> At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .info Registry
>> Agreement
>> <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Proposed+Renewal+of+.info+Registry+Agreement>
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Evin
>>
>> *From: *GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on
>> behalf of Greg Shatan <greg at isoc-ny.org
>> <mailto:greg at isoc-ny.org>>
>> *Date: *Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:44 PM
>> *To: *CPWG <cpwg at icann.org <mailto:cpwg at icann.org>>, Evin
>> Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu at icann.org
>> <mailto:evin.erdogdu at icann.org>>, Jonathan Zuck
>> <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:greg at isoc-ny.org>
>>
>> President, ISOC-NY
>>
>> /"The Internet is for everyone"/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>> _______________________________________________
>> GTLD-WG mailing list
>> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:greg at isoc-ny.org>
>> President, ISOC-NY
>> /"The Internet is for everyone"/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> _______________________________________________
> GTLD-WG mailing list
> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> <mailto: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 <mailto:greg at isoc-ny.org>
> President, ISOC-NY
> /"The Internet is for everyone"/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190429/a8eed07d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CPWG
mailing list