[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal

[Marita Moll]

So, perhaps the price cap removal could be delayed until after the 
market impact evaluation process that Greg has outlined in the new 
proposal was in place. Otherwise, there is no incentive to actually 
proceed with the process. I realize that evaluation process was intended 
for the .org part of the package but could apply to all.

That said, I am mostly concerned with the impact on .org. I know that 
some lobby groups have gone into overdrive over this issue -- but users 
don't respond to these things unless they truly feel threatened. And 
users have responded in droves.

If we ignore this, whatever the good reasons to release the caps which 
have been put forward here and which I understand, I don't think we are 
listening to end-users.

Marita

On 4/30/2019 9:46 AM, Justine Chew wrote:
> Thanks for the revised draft, Greg.
>
> I'd rather hope that we could address all 3 .org, .biz. and .info RA 
> renewals in a single statement in an attempt to consider 
> inter-connected ramifications and while still verbalising support for 
> ISOC without singling out the .org RA renewal.
>
> My personal position is while I don't object to the proposed price cap 
> removal because I see some merits in Jonathan's explanation, I think 
> it might be worth considering doing so in a less abrupt fashion by 
> deferring the price cap removal to give potential and existing 
> registrants time/leeway to plan for/react to an eventual price cap 
> removal. My proposition here has to do more with the *impact of 
> acquiescing to immediate price cap removals* *on the .biz, and .info 
> TLDs*, and by extension, on .com and .net TLDs eventually.
>
> Justine
> -----
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 15:31, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com 
> <mailto:ocl at gih.com>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Greg,
>
>     thanks for this revised draft. However, I deplore that once again
>     my proposal of the Registry fees to ICANN following inflation is
>     still not integrated to this Statement whilst this has received
>     support from CPWG participants and I have heard nobody speaking
>     against this.
>     Kindest regards,
>
>     Olivier
>
>     On 30/04/2019 07:14, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>     All,
>>
>>     I am attaching another, further revised draft public comment on
>>     the .ORG renewal, after sifting through the various recent
>>     conversations on the list.   I will try to circulate a redline in
>>     the morning, New York time, but can't right now.
>>
>>     I thought about including something on UA, but for .ORG and in
>>     the absence of proposed language, I did not see the obvious hook
>>     in this statement to bring that concept in.
>>
>>     Best regards,
>>
>>     Greg
>>
>>     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
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     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
>
>     -- 
>     Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>     http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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/20190430/2c29217c/attachment-0001.html>