[CPWG] Yet Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal to also cover .BIZ and .INFO Renewals

Wed May 1 09:31:57 UTC 2019

All,

Firstly, I note that there may well be more than 1 email thread within the
CPWG mail list discussing the .ORG RA renewal (and/or other RA renewals).
So, there is a certainly the chance I have not been able to follow every
one of them.

Secondly, I am responding (partly) to *Bastiaan's and Holly's* request for
a re-draft of Greg's 30 April draft, and *Olivier's* request regarding
registry fees payable to ICANN Org, which I have (almost) completed, and
attach herewith is my two-cents' worth copy of the re-draft (marked as v4,
and both redlined and clean copies). The reasons I say "partly" and
"almost" are as follows:-

1. I have removed all references to .asia as there is an existing draft
statement specifically for the .asia RA renewal, prepared by *Maureen*.

2. Thanking Greg for incorporating my suggestion to include a reference in
support of the regularization of PICs into the proposed RA renewals, I have
since suggested that we also support the regularization of a few other
aspects in the RA renewals. These, including that of PICs, are set out
under section (I) of the copy.

3. In respect of price cap debate, I have now set out the different
opinions and bases in section (II) including a third which suggests a
deferment of the price cap removal with conditions. However, section (II)
is incomplete because:-
(a) As this point, I still do not know the conclusion for the group
supporting removing price caps.
(b) I will qualify by saying that I do not know if the suggestion to defer
removal is intrinsically linked to one (or more) request for economic study
or not. Instead I have based the deferment suggestion on the notion of
fairness.

As such, the key portions touching on these two points are marked in yellow
highlights for ease of locating.

4. I have included under section (III) the request for registry fees
payable to ICANN Org to be adjusted for inflation on an *annual basis and
for this adjustment to also be adopted in the base RA*. Olivier/others
should indicate whether section (III) is acceptable.

5. I have also included under section (IV) a comment about UA which I think
is general enough to be relevant.

*I am handing this v4 over to Greg for settling since he is the designated
penholder in this case. Thanks, Greg!*

Thank you all in advance for your consideration. I am hoping that the
attachments will get through the mailing list. If not, please refer to the
relevant wiki workspace:
https://community.icann.org/x/-oSGBg

Justine Chew
-----

On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 16:49, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
wrote:

> Well, despite presumptive renewal, ICANN is under no obligation to renew
>
> Jonathan Zuck
> Executive Director
> Innovators Network Foundation
> www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of
> Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:43:12 AM
> *To:* Greg Shatan; Maureen Hilyard
> *Cc:* CPWG
> *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Further Revised
> Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal
>
> The problem with a post-removal study is what do you do if you find things
> have gone south. What is the recourse?
>
> Alan
>
> At 30/04/2019 12:50 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 Justineâ€™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 â€œreal time,â€ 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 itâ€™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> 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> 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>
> 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> 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
> President, ISOC-NY
> "The Internet is for everyone"
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> _______________________________________________
> GTLD-WG mailing list
> 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
> President, ISOC-NY
> "The Internet is for everyone"
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190501/db52cda0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: v4-Redlined-Draft ALAC Statement on the Proposed Renewals of the ORG BIZ INFO Registry Agreements.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 34227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190501/db52cda0/v4-Redlined-DraftALACStatementontheProposedRenewalsoftheORGBIZINFORegistryAgreements-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: v4-CLEAN-Draft ALAC Statement on the Proposed Renewals of the ORG BIZ INFO Registry Agreements.DOCX
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 29609 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190501/db52cda0/v4-CLEAN-DraftALACStatementontheProposedRenewalsoftheORGBIZINFORegistryAgreements-0001.DOCX>