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

Sat Feb 9 21:53:48 UTC 2019

Whaddya know, 'plus ça *change*, plus c'est la même chose'.  See the paper
written by a few of us way back when; 2013.  Might as well be hung for a
sheep as a lamb!

-Carlton

=============================
*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 3:30 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
wrote:

> Let’s hash this out Sunday morning in Kobe. Looking forward to it!
>
>
>
> *From:* cw at christopherwilkinson.eu <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 9, 2019 3:24 PM
> *To:* cpwg at icann.org
> *Cc:* Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>; Kan Kaili <
> kankaili at gmail.com>; Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net>; Maureen Hilyard <
> maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] URGENT: Strategic Plan
> Comments
>
>
>
> Good evening :
>
> Thankyou for these comments.
>
> @ Maureen : In my view, the principal and priority issue in ICANN's
> strategic plan is to maintain the credibility and global acceptability of
> the multi-stakeholder system. Ensuring that there is a permanent balance in
> the ICANN decision making processes respecting the public interest, is an
> essential factor to that effect. In practice ALAC is the only
> multi-stakeholder entity that is able to achieve that. Otherwise, if ICANN
> continues to be driven primarily by the interests of incumbent operators,
> sooner or later the multi-stakeholder model will crack, for lack of
> international acceptability.
>
> Consequently I maintain that the issue of economic balance of interests
> within the multi-stakeholder community should be up front as a primary
> strategic objective for ICANN.org and the ICANN Community., supported,
> indeed demanded by ALAC.
>
> @Kalil : Noted ; I am aware of what you say, but it is not correct.
> Whether we call ICANN a 'regulator' or not, (or something else in another
> language), I don't care, but the fact is that the power that the ICANN
> Community and ICANN.org exercise over the allocation of DNS resources and
> the operators' business models exceeds that of official Regulators in
> several other sectors. For example, the ITU's powers over spectrum ; the
> national telecommunications Regulators over mobile phone licenses etc.
>
> Consequently,. I maintain my position.
>
>
>
> Thanks and Regards to you all,
>
>
>
> CW
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 9 Feb 2019, at 20:06, Kan Kaili <kankaili at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi, Christopher,
>
>
>
> Regarding the point of "ICANN's credibility as the DNS Regulator", ICANN
> does not even admit itself as a "regulator", not to say to enhance its
> credibility as regulator.  Thus, I would first propose ICANN to make clear
> about what exactly ICANN is before enforcing its anything.
>
>
>
> Kaili
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:*cw at christopherwilkinson.eu
>
> *To:* Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org> ; cpwg at icann.org
>
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 09, 2019 5:10 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] URGENT: Strategic Plan
> Comments
>
>
>
> 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>
> 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 | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck |
>
> <image001.png>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> _______________________________________________
> registration-issues-wg mailing list
> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> registration-issues-wg mailing list
> 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/20190209/9104abd0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICANN as Regulator.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 67903 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190209/9104abd0/ICANNasRegulator-0001.pdf>