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

Wed May 1 20:14:43 UTC 2019

+100

On Wed, 1 May 2019, 9:48 AM Cheryl Langdon-Orr, <langdonorr at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Excellent ... Thanks to *all* the contributors *and*, of course, the
> drafters and primary 'pen holders' on this comment, it is not only
> something I can support but also an excellent example of why the CPWG
> exists...
>
>
> <https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr
> about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
> <https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
>
>
> On Thu, 2 May 2019 at 04:52, Greg Shatan <greg at isoc-ny.org> wrote:
>
>> Justine,
>>
>> Thank you so much for keeping the ball rolling!  I will pick it up again
>> shortly.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 9:34 AM Judith Hellerstein <
>> judith at jhellerstein.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Justine for the revised draft and for the inclusion of UA into
>>> the comments which is something I have been suggesting. It looks good
>>>
>>> Best
>>> Judith
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> Judith at jhellerstein.com
>>> Skype ID:Judithhellerstein
>>>
>>> On May 1, 2019, at 8:57 AM, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> registration-issues-wg mailing list
>>> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>>>
>> --
>> 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/20190501/501b3113/attachment-0001.html>