Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Registries Not Happy with Registry Agreement
As I understand the situation, it is not really a "rationale" that is lacking, but concrete examples of future harms which the right to amend could address. As we enter a world that may be very different than the one we are in now (and certainly with a very different mix of registry players, and a world where the distinction between a registry and a registrar is no longer a sharp line, if indeed there is any distinction at all), it is difficult to call up what the specific harm is that may threaten ICANN or the public interest. But it is not unreasonable that good stewardship requires that the Board have SOME remedy for future unknown, but at the time critical, issues. Some of you may have heard me recount of a time quite a few decades ago when I had to install a fibre optic link when such things were a rarity outside of telecom companies. There were two bidders, one who we knew would do whatever it took (including lose money) to honour the word of the contract. The other would do the same to honour the intent of the contract. Given that we really did not know what to put in a bullet-proof contract for fibre-optics, we chose the latter company. In our mind, that was the only possible choice, since we fully expected there might well arise some "gotcha" during the process, but we were totally unable to identify what that might be. So we needed a process that would cover an as-yet-unknown problem. Although a completely different situation, I suspect the logic of the Board is similar. Alan At 05/05/2013 08:40 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
Hi Rinalia: I think a significant but maybe still minority set have in principle; must be the reason the concept appears in the RAA and RA Agreements. But this fear of being the DNS 'regulator' cripples their public posture, at least until they see which way the wind blows.
Then in addition, I really do believe there is a very small group of senior policy staff that are fellow travelers; they hold the view that ICANN must be more activist in the broad public interest. These seem to be feeling their oats and feeding off Fadi's seeming commitment to push the envelope.
So far as I am concerned, the ALAC must deliberately calibrate all of our public postures to support this development.
Best, -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
Carlton and JJS,
To your mind, why is it that the board hasn't provided a rationale as to why it would support the unilateral right to amend? What are the constraints?
Where is staff getting the motivation to push from?
Fadi's remarks during the Ry call in March indicated that there will be no new gTLD lift off without agreement on PICs and from Beijing I get a sense that he will pursue it.
Rinalia On May 5, 2013 11:31 PM, "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear JJ: Evan has promised to send you something that might go nicely with what is advocated here.
I truly value your judgment and advice. So from me personally, it is always gratifying to know that you - and other colleagues - are so in touch with the influences that colour my view of the world.
Best, -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:15 PM, JJS <jjs.global@gmail.com> wrote:
*Brilliant analysis Carlton, with the added spice of your style, wherein
one recognizes some generous ingredients from Fitzgerald, Naipaul, Rushdie. A joy to read!* * * *Recently, under the aegis of Google,** a "domain name association" was formed, * *http://www.whatdomain.org/ * * * *Where does the global public interest fit into all of this? 3 points:* * * *- The creation of such a business association lifts any ambiguity about
whether ICANN should or should not also serve as the domain business association. Clearly, business taking care of its own interests outside of ICANN relieves our corporation from having to worry about those who benefitted and still benefit from the land grab.* * * *- I'd take this even a step further: the "domain name association" will
most likely be overwhelmingly English-language, US-based and therefore under US laws regarding trademarks, "intellectual property" (please read "keep off my grass, I got here first"), with a fair proportion of smaller actors in Australia, New Zealand, etc. This association will replicate the current standards, with little room for *registries* from elsewhere. So I
would strongly advocate the formation of "domain name associations" in other parts of the world, with the view of creating, one day, a truly worldwide association which would not be beholden unto the mainly US big players.* * * *- Without waiting for that to happen, we should take position on the
fact that the creation of a "domain name association" does indeed lift any remaining ambiguity about the remit of ICANN. We should make clear that it is ICANN's duty to serve, above anything else, the global public interest. We should be able to fit this topic into the over-arching theme I suggested in an e-mail sent around yesterday for Atlas-2, "The User Perspective".* * * *Best regards,* *Jean-Jacques.*
2013/5/4 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
Ah well... if and only if....
.....ICANN would declare the global public interest as its reason to
be.
And if it'd just get over itself and flat out say 'we a regulator!' all this argumentation over the unilateral right to amend from the RySG would be just some pissing in the wind.
The fact is ICANN unilaterally gave registries license to monetize character strings, known and hitherto unknown. And then ICANN took a little shaving from that gift, called a fee. You see so-called third world fleshpots condemned for the exact same thing with tones of high moral dudgeon. Not to make too fine a point of it, the registry operators got themselves a gift that keeps on giving; a protected market, all of us lessees. Quite apart from the unlucky - or plain dumb - few, they're all the better for it.
Now, here's the catch. Such action most places are usually in the gift of the state. And the state tends to raise a statist actor, sometimes called a regulator - and in noisome places, a regular 'bagman' - to protect its interests. The common method to retain some measure of control is a license; see the definitive meaning of that term. And since that license is the fiat of the state, it usually is handed down, no input from the licensee other than their name and particulars. Take it. Or, leave it.
If ICANN would just come out and state the obvious, "I am a regulator, suck on it' all this unpleasantness would've been avoided.
The contract is supposed to reflect ICANN standing athwarts the portal, like Leonidas guarding that gateway to Thermopylae, as it were, protecting the global public interests from the marauding - go with the metaphor now! - 'contracted parties'. The figment is the claim that the contract is this bastion of consensus policy making. That is overstating the facts and brushing the line beyond which propaganda begins. For the contracted parties no way in hell see the rest of the community as having a say in all this. Quick now, who can recall them crying out for all of us, the fry, being invited to the party?
To be brutally frank, I see this kvetching of Chuck Gomes and the RySG crowd purely as a manifestation of impatience with the assault on their sense of exceptionalism. Message from me: count your fingers going in. And count 'em again, coming out.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: 3 May 2013 17:10 Subject: Registries Not Happy with Registry Agreement To: NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu
Powerful comments from Chuck Gomes & Verisign about the proposed Registry Agreement and ICANN's lack of good faith in the negotiation process:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-29apr13/msg00002.html
It would seem things aren't as cheery and ready to close on RA as
ICANN
said.
Best, Robin _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
*Hi All,* * * *having gone through all your interesting (and sometimes profound) observations once again, and then forcing myself to take a telescopic view, I would like to offer a few remarks covering several of the topics discussed.* * * *- In the foreground, trying to attract attention, are a bunch of things for registries and registrars; compliance; document deadlines; the inequality of status between Board, SOs, GAC and other ACs; the number of sub-themes to be had in Atlas-2. And I see AoC, but also ATRT 1 & 2, as attempts to breathe rationality and legitimacy into a system which was simply not designed for that purpose.* * * *- In the distance, but looming larger, I see a fundamental flaw in the way ICANN was launched (it was launched, more than really designed). Because of their cultural complexion, the founders considered that an Internet body would be a known animal, formed of familiar parts all manageable, simply scaled up. They had not foreseen that public authority would, though belatedly, want to be entrusted with upbringing their baby. They had not predicted that business would come to hold sway in ICANN, simply because the business model they envisaged was not designed to attain its present proportions. This is how a one-man system of name attribution, under Postel, has developed into this contraption having to manage a >100 M $/year operation, and soon perhaps much more.* * * *- What we are stuck with now is a complex dilemma. When this thing was DARPA, the single biggest challenge was making sure the signal got through. As nobody was out to defend a global public interest, or even to formulate such a concept in relation to the Internet, businesses and solicitors were quick to promote corporate interests, as soon as the military experiment turned public. As a result, we now have business demanding T+50 not as a privilege, but as a right; the onus of proof ("show us that there is effective harm") now rests on the shoulders of the lay, not on those of the DNS clergy; and the US DoC is painstakingly trying to socialize the idea that although ICANN operates solely under California law and is cleverly overseen by an Under Secretary, it is in fact an international organization which, at this stage, still requires an act of faith on your part.* * * *- So, where do we go from here? Of course, at this stage it is necessary to carry on with existing reform, to respond to questions or remarks from the Structural Improvements Committee, to provide data for ATRT-2. But as the "natural home" of the general Internet user, the ALAC should indeed, as proposed by Evan and supported by others, go the full length. Because the Internet has become, almost unwittingly, the first global infrastructure in human history, * *- we have the duty to consider principles, not only convenience; * *- to question existing structures, if clearly they no longer serve those principles; * *- to foster a complete Internet eco-system not based on exclusivity (e.g. either ITU or ICANN), but building on the proven advantages of each entity (ICANN has a lot to learn from ISOC in terms of identifying the public interest, the IGF experiment could be taken forward in another shape, etc). * * * *- Most likely, all suggestions will not be implementable. That's all right, provided that at some point, a group of concerned people did identify the real challenges on which to base their proposals. That may be us.* * * *This was a roundabout way of supporting Evan's suggestion to deal with fundamentals. Taboos are upheld only to the advantage of those who formulated them.* * * *Best regards,* *Jean-Jacques.* 2013/5/7 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
As I understand the situation, it is not really a "rationale" that is lacking, but concrete examples of future harms which the right to amend could address.
As we enter a world that may be very different than the one we are in now (and certainly with a very different mix of registry players, and a world where the distinction between a registry and a registrar is no longer a sharp line, if indeed there is any distinction at all), it is difficult to call up what the specific harm is that may threaten ICANN or the public interest. But it is not unreasonable that good stewardship requires that the Board have SOME remedy for future unknown, but at the time critical, issues.
Some of you may have heard me recount of a time quite a few decades ago when I had to install a fibre optic link when such things were a rarity outside of telecom companies. There were two bidders, one who we knew would do whatever it took (including lose money) to honour the word of the contract. The other would do the same to honour the intent of the contract. Given that we really did not know what to put in a bullet-proof contract for fibre-optics, we chose the latter company. In our mind, that was the only possible choice, since we fully expected there might well arise some "gotcha" during the process, but we were totally unable to identify what that might be. So we needed a process that would cover an as-yet-unknown problem. Although a completely different situation, I suspect the logic of the Board is similar.
Alan
At 05/05/2013 08:40 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
Hi Rinalia: I think a significant but maybe still minority set have in principle; must be the reason the concept appears in the RAA and RA Agreements. But this fear of being the DNS 'regulator' cripples their public posture, at least until they see which way the wind blows.
Then in addition, I really do believe there is a very small group of senior policy staff that are fellow travelers; they hold the view that ICANN must be more activist in the broad public interest. These seem to be feeling their oats and feeding off Fadi's seeming commitment to push the envelope.
So far as I am concerned, the ALAC must deliberately calibrate all of our public postures to support this development.
Best, -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
Carlton and JJS,
To your mind, why is it that the board hasn't provided a rationale as to why it would support the unilateral right to amend? What are the constraints?
Where is staff getting the motivation to push from?
Fadi's remarks during the Ry call in March indicated that there will be no new gTLD lift off without agreement on PICs and from Beijing I get a sense that he will pursue it.
Rinalia On May 5, 2013 11:31 PM, "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear JJ: Evan has promised to send you something that might go nicely with what is advocated here.
I truly value your judgment and advice. So from me personally, it is always gratifying to know that you - and other colleagues - are so in touch with the influences that colour my view of the world.
Best, -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:15 PM, JJS <jjs.global@gmail.com> wrote:
*Brilliant analysis Carlton, with the added spice of your style, wherein
one recognizes some generous ingredients from Fitzgerald, Naipaul, Rushdie. A joy to read!* * * *Recently, under the aegis of Google,** a "domain name association" was formed, * *http://www.whatdomain.org/ * * * *Where does the global public interest fit into all of this? 3 points:* * * *- The creation of such a business association lifts any ambiguity about
whether ICANN should or should not also serve as the domain business association. Clearly, business taking care of its own interests outside of ICANN relieves our corporation from having to worry about those who benefitted and still benefit from the land grab.* * * *- I'd take this even a step further: the "domain name association" will
most likely be overwhelmingly English-language, US-based and therefore under US laws regarding trademarks, "intellectual property" (please read "keep off my grass, I got here first"), with a fair proportion of smaller actors in Australia, New Zealand, etc. This association will replicate the current standards, with little room for *registries* from elsewhere. So I
would strongly advocate the formation of "domain name associations" in other parts of the world, with the view of creating, one day, a truly worldwide association which would not be beholden unto the mainly US big players.* * * *- Without waiting for that to happen, we should take position on the
fact that the creation of a "domain name association" does indeed lift any remaining ambiguity about the remit of ICANN. We should make clear that it is ICANN's duty to serve, above anything else, the global public interest. We should be able to fit this topic into the over-arching theme I suggested in an e-mail sent around yesterday for Atlas-2, "The User Perspective".* * * *Best regards,* *Jean-Jacques.*
2013/5/4 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
Ah well... if and only if....
.....ICANN would declare the global public interest as its reason
to be.
And if it'd just get over itself and flat out say 'we a regulator!' all this argumentation over the unilateral right to amend from the RySG would be just some pissing in the wind.
The fact is ICANN unilaterally gave registries license to monetize character strings, known and hitherto unknown. And then ICANN took a little shaving from that gift, called a fee. You see so-called third world fleshpots condemned for the exact same thing with tones of high moral dudgeon. Not to make too fine a point of it, the registry operators got themselves a gift that keeps on giving; a protected market, all of us lessees. Quite apart from the unlucky - or plain dumb - few, they're all the better for it.
Now, here's the catch. Such action most places are usually in the gift of the state. And the state tends to raise a statist actor, sometimes called a regulator - and in noisome places, a regular 'bagman' - to protect its interests. The common method to retain some measure of control is a license; see the definitive meaning of that term. And since that license is the fiat of the state, it usually is handed down, no input from the licensee other than their name and particulars. Take it. Or, leave it.
If ICANN would just come out and state the obvious, "I am a regulator, suck on it' all this unpleasantness would've been avoided.
The contract is supposed to reflect ICANN standing athwarts the portal, like Leonidas guarding that gateway to Thermopylae, as it were, protecting the global public interests from the marauding - go with the metaphor now! - 'contracted parties'. The figment is the claim that the contract is this bastion of consensus policy making. That is overstating the facts and brushing the line beyond which propaganda begins. For the contracted parties no way in hell see the rest of the community as having a say in all this. Quick now, who can recall them crying out for all of us, the fry, being invited to the party?
To be brutally frank, I see this kvetching of Chuck Gomes and the RySG crowd purely as a manifestation of impatience with the assault on their sense of exceptionalism. Message from me: count your fingers going in. And count 'em again, coming out.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> > Date: 3 May 2013 17:10 > Subject: Registries Not Happy with Registry Agreement > To: NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu > > > Powerful comments from Chuck Gomes & Verisign about the proposed Registry > Agreement and ICANN's lack of good faith in the negotiation process: > >
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-29apr13/msg00002.html
> > It would seem things aren't as cheery and ready to close on RA as ICANN > said. > > Best, > Robin > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: >
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
> _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
participants (2)
-
Alan Greenberg -
JJS