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

Wed May 1 12:57:48 UTC 2019

Thank you Justine, Greg and all for a well thoughtful statement.
Also for the inclusion of a clause on the UA, which I believe is important
as it goes with ICANN direction of the new strategy.
Nadira

On Wed, May 1, 2019, 12:32 Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190501/0eb143d0/attachment.html>