[CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [GTLD-WG] Fwd: FW: Draft Comment on RA Renewals
Marita Moll
mmoll at ca.inter.net
Mon Apr 29 08:06:48 UTC 2019
Thanks Evin. That will be very helpful.
Marita
On 4/29/2019 9:23 AM, Evin Erdogdu wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
>
> Please see an At-Large workspace devoted to the ALAC Statement on
> Registry Agreements
> <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+ALAC+Statement+on+Registry+Agreements>:
> https://community.icann.org/x/-oSGBg
>
>
> The current draft of the statement is here, and comments from this
> mailing list will be copied over.
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
> Evin
>
> *From: *registration-issues-wg
> <registration-issues-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of
> Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net>
> *Date: *Monday, April 29, 2019 at 9:30 AM
> *To: *Greg Shatan <greg at isoc-ny.org>
> *Cc: *CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Fwd: FW:
> Draft Comment on RA Renewals
>
> Greg
>
> I fear it is almost too late, but I will repeat what I said on the
> CPWG: .ORG is special and if we don’t comment on the others, or if
> comments on .ASIA are made separately, we should, at least, comment on
> .ORG which is for international non-profits - in the end user
> interest. And to make a point that was made in the conversation,
> monitoring will not help; once a contract is signed, arrangements are
> made based upon that contract, so undoing those arrangements because a
> review says they aren’t operating as they should would be nigh on
> impossible.
>
> Holly
>
>
>
> On Apr 29, 2019, at 3:58 PM, Greg Shatan <greg at isoc-ny.org
> <mailto:greg at isoc-ny.org>> wrote:
>
> Siva,
>
> I don’t disagree with you. ISOC’s mission is much broader than
> ICANN, much less At-Large. I am as trying to say that At-Large
> should view ISOC with a certain kinship, based on shared values
> and support for priorities that ultimately benefit the end-users —
> the Internet is for everyone!
>
> But the broad spectrum of activities and priorities that ISOC has
> goes far beyond At-Large’s “band.”
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 1:33 AM sivasubramanian muthusamy
> <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 10:44 AM Greg Shatan <greg at isoc-ny.org
> <mailto: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.
>
> No. Please don't equate ISOC with one Constituency of ICANN.
> Rather, ISOC's mission is larger than the DNS. While ICANN
> perceives limitations in it's mission, ISOC's policies and
> programs span way beyond, and what ISOC does results in what
> is good for the DNS.
>
> 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
> [atlarge-lists.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gtld-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=_URx1h8dnj_TZXiP4YAaCeBTp5akrX9ZEG_Iw021p0o&s=sQ2x0oFhoKnd8Eg0ik89xqr5amdx1qHnMSlYHNObcy4&e=>
>
> 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
> [atlarge-lists.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gtld-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=_URx1h8dnj_TZXiP4YAaCeBTp5akrX9ZEG_Iw021p0o&s=sQ2x0oFhoKnd8Eg0ik89xqr5amdx1qHnMSlYHNObcy4&e=>
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
> --
>
> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190429/f4afc402/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CPWG
mailing list