[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Yet Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal to also cover .BIZ and .INFO Renewals
Marita Moll
mmoll at ca.inter.net
Wed May 1 20:03:49 UTC 2019
Thanks Justine and Greg for putting together this document which I think
is excellent. Whatever the massaging to finalize item 3 below, in the
end, it honestly represents our discussions. Grateful to you both for
this work.
Marita
On 5/1/2019 11:31 AM, Justine Chew 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 <mailto: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 <http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of
> Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
> <mailto: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 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 <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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190501/44a48aff/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CPWG
mailing list