[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal
Marita Moll
mmoll at ca.inter.net
Tue Apr 30 23:25:53 UTC 2019
Thanks Greg. We are definitely moving to a much more refined comment
that many are ready to support. However, given the divisions here, there
is no denying that there is still considerable discomfort in the
community re: removing price caps on .org. To be an honest comment,
this should be mentioned. Justine had something to that effect in her
draft.
re: the economic study - If the work has already been done, then I
suppose all would be ready to launch as soon as the price cap was off.
However, once the price cap is off, it is going to be hard to put the
genie back in the bottle whatever the economic study says -- so I am not
too optimistic.
On your point about sophisticated lobby groups pushing people towards
action, yes, I've seen this sort of campaign too. And been cynical about
them. But they still have to tap into something deep to move people to
action. So, I don't discount the feeling that then causes people and
groups to access the tools provided to them to express that feeling.
Marita
On 4/30/2019 6:50 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> All,
>
> A few responses to the various earlier emails.
>
> @Ricardo, Good point. I think it makes sense to call for several
> studies over time, rather than a single study.
>
> @Olivier, My omission of your contribution was an oversight, not a
> conclusion that the view lacked support or was off-topic. My
> apologies. I, for one, would be happy to add something on Registry
> fees to the draft. Please provide text or point me to the best
> iteration of your suggested text (which I missed, sadly). Or I can
> take what is in Justine’s draft.
>
> Personally, I am not in favor of doing an economic study before
> removing the price cap. As Jonathan notes, this work has already been
> done. My thought was to have a study done in “real time,” based on
> observing the domain name market(s) after the caps were lifted, so
> that the effects could be accurately observed and analyzed, and used
> to inform future action. Predictive studies are by their nature
> speculative, and can more easily be bent in one direction or the
> other.. They tend to be more successful and reliable when the study
> structure and method is well-understood and time-tested (e.g., a
> pre-merger analysis). A predictive study here may prove far less
> reliable and useful, given the number of variables and inputs and the
> novelty of the study. I also think it’s an unrealistic request. But
> as penholder, I will draft whatever the consensus becomes.
>
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:11 PM Maureen Hilyard
> <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Thank you, John. I think a consensus call on the document will be
> required from this session because the extension we requested
> closes soon after and Evin has to prepare the doc for submission.
> We can do ratification by the ALAC after the fact but a recorded
> consensus would be helpful.
>
>
> M
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:50 AM John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com
> <mailto:jlaprise at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Maureen,
>
> In the event that you're not at tomorrow's meeting, do you
> want me to take any action on your behalf as vice chair?
>
> Sent from my Pixel 3XL
>
> John Laprise, Ph.D.
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 9:59 AM Maureen Hilyard
> <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> I like this version Greg .
>
> In case I can't make tomorrow's CPWG meeting. I believe
> the new version provides a good compromise of the
> different views that have been presented by the CPWG
> discussants. I like the idea of an economic study as well
> as Marita's suggestion to delay any change until the
> results of such a study were revealed.
> I also prefer putting the RAs under one umbrella
> statement. The separate .asia statement reinforces support
> for the inclusion of UA. Anything else that is relevant
> would be in the general ALAC RA statement.
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 8:14 PM Greg Shatan
> <greg at isoc-ny.org <mailto:greg at isoc-ny.org>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190501/1911b8d7/attachment.html>
More information about the CPWG
mailing list