[CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] URGENT: Strategic Plan Comments

[Marita Moll]

Thanks Christopher. Interesting comments. I need to hear from others in 
the group re: support for inclusion. They do enter into details of 
domain name management that are not necessarily the right call for this 
type of document. Not comfortable with my own depth of knowledge on 
these items to make that judgement.

Marita

On 2/8/2019 1:10 PM, cw at christopherwilkinson.eu wrote:
>
> Dear Jonathan, Dear Friends and Colleagues :
>
> I hav read the draft ALAC response to the ICANN Strategic Plan. I 
> appreciate and commend the work, effort and understanding of the 
> rapporteurs to this effect.
>
> Your having requested comments, I would say that there is one 
> paragraph in the draft that I would wish to see reinforced and 
> emphasised. Under :
>
>
> *2. Improve the effectiveness of ICANN’s mulltistakeholder model of 
> governance.*
>
> I would wish to see a stronger statement that ICANN's credibility as 
> the DNS Regulator requires greater efforts to ensure the balance of 
> interests notably with regard to users and the public interest. In 
> this context, I refer specifically to the comment received by the new 
> gTLD PDP from the Public Interest Community :
>
> << 5. In setting up a host of 'procedural changes' that amount to a 
> capture of the New gTLD Process by large incumbent portfolio 
> applicants … This set of self-interested procedural initiatives defy 
> the original goals of the new gTLD process. … These … goals will not 
> be achieved by many of the policies being proposed which appear 
> designed to support the drafters – largely incumbent registries… >>
>
> I consider that ALAC should give positive support to the concerns 
> voiced by the Public Interest Community, not least because At Large is 
> the only multistakeholder constituency with the presence and mandate 
> to ensure the balance of interests in the PDP for the users and the 
> public interest.
>
> In this context may I recall my previous postings about the essential 
> benchmarks of the public interest in the new gTLD PDP:
>
> 1.  Incumbent operators should not be allowed to determine the terms 
> and conditions of access to TLDs by new entrants.
>
> 2. 'Portfolio' applications should be strongly discouraged, if not banned.
>
> 3. The economic rent to a 'Good Name' should accrue to the 
> Registrant(s). They should not be burdened by fees and charges 
> arising, notably, from auctions. The Registry has no business paying 
> for, nor seeking compensation for, artificially excessive costs of 
> registering a new TLD. The costs to Registrants should be moderated in 
> consequence.
>
> I would be glad if the above considerations were included in the ALAC 
> response to the Strategic Plan.
>
> Could I also  say that, otherwise, ALAC may appear -  to the outside 
> world - as complicit in a degree of unhealthy collusion among the 
> incumbent operators. This should not go on.
>
>
> Regards to you all
>
> Christopher Wilkinson
>
>> On 8 Feb 2019, at 16:30, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org 
>> <mailto:JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Folks,
>> Maureen and Bastien have done a great job with drafting At-large 
>> comments on the Strategic Plan but they haven’t received enough 
>> feedback. Please take a look and comment by Sunday! Here are the 
>> comments:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LHZ56WJUHuqglhsDySKqqLCc_PxvyuwXgCzonwVNj2k/edit?usp=sharing 
>> [docs.google.com] 
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1LHZ56WJUHuqglhsDySKqqLCc-5FPxvyuwXgCzonwVNj2k_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=HedNXfBayuWxdPer7COiCJBd39KxvJQIgCaiDYF2Tm8&m=uy7SvY89O9H3z0YmVlyAVsMgkjQ2eULo_VhvccfCziY&s=SI8CpaqgFd9xyT0-T89vi8IesD7azsexcUu_DlZuRHI&e=>
>> Thanks!
>> Jonathan
>> Jonathan Zuck *|*  Executive Director *|*  Innovators Network
>> jzuck at innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:jzuck at innovatorsnetwork.org> | O 
>> 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck |
>> <image001.png>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190208/5012194f/attachment.html>