[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal
greg at isoc-ny.org
Tue Apr 30 17:58:31 UTC 2019
I would not place much weight on the slew of comments sent in on .ORG (and
others). Many of these are “cut-and-paste” comments with identical text.
Others are one-liners. Some are quite ill-informed (one commenter thought
they would have to pay the RO quarterly fee, others have thought that PIR
is a for-profit organization, etc., etc.).
I assume that some commenters sincerely felt threatened. But was this a
credible, well-founded or well-informed fear, or just a trip through a
fun-house designed to get a rise out of the commenters? A great number of
these comments are the direct result of a well-orchestrated campaign, rife
with overblown statements and catastrophic worst-case scenarios. In the
absence of other information, such campaigns can be quite effective in
fomenting fear and then harnessing that fear in order to flood a comments
period. We’ve seen this before. If you wind people up, you can get a lot
of them to go in the direction you want.
It might be too generous to say that “some lobby groups” are behind this.
It appears to be one. A Google search revealed the “engine” used to
generate all of those identical comments, complete with four pre-loaded
variations, and cleverly engineered so that the comment will come from the
sender’s own email account and not from the “engine.” The page is here:
https://www.internetcommerce.org/comment-org/. There are multiple links
from other pages, blogs, social media accounts, etc., to this resource.
These campaigns can reach out in many directions, in different places and
in different guises. It can take a great deal of discernment to recognize
them for what they are and to resist them. I hope that the CPWG
collectively can be discerning.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 4:12 AM Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 15:31, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
>> 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,
>> On 30/04/2019 07:14, Greg Shatan wrote:
>> 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 Shatan
>> greg at isoc-ny.org
>> President, ISOC-NY
>> *"The Internet is for everyone"*
>> CPWG mailing listCPWG at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>> GTLD-WG mailing listGTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>> Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org
> CPWG mailing listCPWG at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> GTLD-WG mailing list
> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Working Group direct URL:
greg at isoc-ny.org
*"The Internet is for everyone"*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CPWG