Several of the .brands that have dropped their TLDs either weren’t using them at all or have rebranded. If the brand isn’t being used why have a TLD? As for cost – there’s also a cost for actually using them .. -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Olivier Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Date: Wednesday 11 July 2018 at 14:42 To: Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com>, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] [At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista Dear Michele, I wonder why they are dropping it. Does it cost them more in the long run, than using several composed domains? Kindest regards, Olivier On 11/07/2018 10:27, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: Carlton It’s a .brand – zero “normal” registrants or users will be impacted If it was a TLD with actual registrations then it would be a totally different matter, but it isn’t. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com><mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday 10 July 2018 at 21:10 To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org"<mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG? Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects. On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing! https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai... -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en

I think that there's another POV which was argued out in the early 00's, which is, given appropriate reliability, security and social checks and balances, there is no compelling technical reason for tld's to be restricted. I'd say IDN spoofing is a way bigger issue than wilting brand tlds. https://krebsonsecurity.com/2018/03/look-alike-domains-and-visual-confusion/ On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 9:47 AM Michele Neylon - Blacknight, < michele@blacknight.com> wrote:

...

Several of the .brands that have dropped their TLDs either weren’t using them at all or have rebranded.

Carlton's original point still stands.

ICANN steamrolls ahead with new rounds of TLDs, surrounded by those who have gone through lengthy, expensive acquisition processes only to walk away.

The only constituencies within ICANN who want this continued march to oblivion are those with financial interest. And the march takes place during a period of increasing conflict with governments that demonstrates the naked hubris and disregard for the public interest.

If ICANN had any sense of self-preservation it would put its pathetic expansion efforts on hold while it ponders the consequences of defying global privacy regulations. But the culture of industry entitlement is so deeply entrenched that such sensible reflection is unlikely. Still possible, but unlikely. And At-Large will still be there to help provide guidance should ICANN come to its senses.

Otherwise, the lemming march continues and the multilaterals lay in wait.

- Evan

...

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- -

A major problem with nTLDs, including (and particularly) brand nTLDS, is ICANN should have charged, and should going forward, millions for them, not $185K+$25K/year. And if any were deserving but not financially capable they could be handled on a case by case basis. It's not like it's difficult to give something away so let's not bog ourselves down in that. I think $2.5M for a new gTLD and $5M for a brand TLD sounds pretty reasonable, and $100K/$250K/year, maybe more. To quote a recent note here it's not much for a Fortune 500 company. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

On 12-07-18 11:40, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:

In other words the Internet is not primarily a business platform but a means of inter connection open to all.

Sure, but none of us *need* brand nTLDs to use the internet. They are in no way essential to the functioning of the 'net - they are a tool for brand marketing. Julf

On 12-07-18 14:34, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:

and neither is the DNS as a whole.

The net would be significantly harder (albeit increasingly less so) to use without DNS, but not having brand nTLDs doesn't really affect the normal user. It seems that in this discussion, we are confusing the right to play football on a public green on one hand with everybody being offered cheap advertising space at the World Cup arena on the other. Julf

In my opinion, ICANN should play the role of a regulator. As a matter of fact, when ICANN's functions were executed by the US Gov., or when these functions were mandated to ICANN by the US Gov., all these functions were indeed the role of a regulator. Unfortunately, during the transaction, much of the attention was focused on accountability, transparancy, etc., while the true nature of ICANN's function was overlooked. That is, ICANN forgot what it is doing and what it is. Thus, if we restore ICANN's nature as playing the role of a regulator, the fees collected are naturally "regulatory fees", just the same as FCC of the US collects its fees. In the case of the FCC, these fees include the following (https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees): a.. Application Processing Fees for licenses, equipment approvals, antenna registrations, tariff filings, formal complaints (not ordinary complaints), and other authorizations and regulatory actions. b.. Annual Regulatory Fees collected from specific categories of regulated entities in the mass media, common carrier, wireless, international and cable television services. c.. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Fees for processing requests under the Freedom of Information Act. d.. Auction Payments for upfront payments, down payments, and subsequent payments for licenses that the FCC auctions. e.. Forfeitures are penalties that the FCC may assess for violations of law or noncompliance with authorizations. For example, the fees paid by a long-distance service provider are $0.00302 per dollar of its revenue. As long as FCC is non-profit, this has nothing to do with the cost of regulating this particular service provider. Therefore, as inherited from the US Government, ICANN has the full credentials for collecting these regulatory fees, or taxes, from the entities it regulates, i.e., the registries and registrars. Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond To: Christian de Larrinaga ; bzs@theworld.com Cc: LACRALO discussion list ; ICANN At-Large list Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 10:51 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista Dear Christian, On 12/07/2018 11:40, Christian de Larrinaga wrote: Worth pointing out this note is proposing a tax basis for DNS not a cost recovery mechanism. Who gets this tax revenue? Who gets to set it? ICANN does not have the credentials. IMHO the "cost recovery basis" is a red herring for the simple reason that it is impossible to calculate what a TLD will really cost ICANN in the long run. Is it just the cost of processing the application, or is it the cost of fixing problems related to that TLD such as the need to have more ICANN compliance staff for more TLDs with a higher than normal amount of misuse of domains under that TLD? The ICANN model is already a tax revenue model where ICANN taxes every domain sold and Registries, Registrars and their agenda collect that money on behalf of ICANN pretty much like VAT. What about setting higher application fees for brand TLDs? I gather that the place to discuss this is the subsequent procedures PDP, if that has not already been discussed. Kindest regards, Olivier ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

+1 ICANN needs to keep its scope narrow Over the last few years there's been a LOT of scope creep, which is unfortunate -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 On 13/07/2018, 13:34, "At-Large on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of julf@julf.com> wrote: On 12-07-18 19:56, Kan Kaili wrote: > In my opinion, ICANN should play the role of a regulator. Our esteemed CEO, Göran Marby, has a number of phrases he repeats fairly often. "ICANN is not a regulator" is one of them. Julf _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 11:42 PM <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:

On July 13, 2018 at 13:24 michele@blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) wrote:

...

+1

ICANN needs to keep its scope narrow Over the last few years there's been a LOT of scope creep, which is unfortunate

Nature abhors a vacuum.

So do social systems.

If ICANN doesn't find a way to step up to the task someone else will.

Probably people and orgs you'll like a lot less.

-- -Barry Shein

+1 on all that you said.

Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Every ICANN president has vigorously asserted that ICANN is not a regulator. This is not merely a casual opinion, it is a demand imposed upon them by ICANN's lawyers. To admit that ICANN is a regulator - - or even provides some regulatory function - - is to invite even deeper state scrutiny and attempts to make ICANN into a multilateral, treaty-based body than now exists. In a submission to ICANN's Accountability and Transparency review team more than a decade ago, a number of At-Large members submitted an analysis that called on ICANN to recognize the obvious and embrace its inner regulator: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-atrt2-02apr13/pdfNKvEtbrZ3u.pdf Not much has changed. While a few references are dated, the paper's observations and commentaries are as valid now as then. ___________________ Evan Leibovitch, Toronto @evanleibovitch/@el56 On Jul 13, 2018 5:13 PM, "Kan Kaili" <kankaili@gmail.com> wrote: Indeed Goran has said "ICANN is not a regulator" many times. I have heard him saying that myself. However, this is something I disagree with him. Again, in my personal opinion, as long as the positioning of ICANN stays blurry as it is now, the confusion will only accumulate until it creats a crisis. Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com> To: <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 8:33 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista

On 12-07-18 19:56, Kan Kaili wrote:

...

In my opinion, ICANN should play the role of a regulator.

Our esteemed CEO, Göran Marby, has a number of phrases he repeats fairly often. "ICANN is not a regulator" is one of them.

Julf

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Thank you, Evan, for providing this wonderful document "A Call for ICANN to Embrace its Inner Regulator". It is hereby attached for anybody interested, and the following is a quote from it: The first step in solving any problem lies in the admission that a problem exists. The next step is the recognition that ICANN must assume the role analogous to that of a regulator, that it is so well positioned to be. In its aim to achieve international acceptance as a regulatory body, ICANN must be prepared for significant change that more effectively asserts the public interest as the catalyst of, rather than the response to, ICANN policy. In particular, while the multi-stakeholder model needs to be maintained, its current form should be inverted -- that the public interest bodies initiate policy directions and the industry serves in an advisory function. In summary: ● Denial of regulatory function prevents ICANN from sufficiently serving the public interest; ● In the absence of a regulatory authority, ICANN has been captured by the industry it has the duty to oversee, and has become dependent on its growth regardless of public- interest consequences; ● This situation has isolated ICANN from the public it is supposed to serve, provoking both public authority and the marketplace to actively seek alternatives to an ICANN-managed DNS; ● ICANN must recognize this deficiency and assume a role analogous to that of a regulator -- refocused on the public interest -- if it is to maintain its position of preference amongst the alternatives. ● Such a refocus demands redefining the global public interest as the initiator and driver of ICANN policy rather than its current status of reactive adviso Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: Evan Leibovitch To: Kan Kaili Cc: ICANN At-Large list ; Johan Helsingius Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 5:34 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista Every ICANN president has vigorously asserted that ICANN is not a regulator. This is not merely a casual opinion, it is a demand imposed upon them by ICANN's lawyers. To admit that ICANN is a regulator - - or even provides some regulatory function - - is to invite even deeper state scrutiny and attempts to make ICANN into a multilateral, treaty-based body than now exists. In a submission to ICANN's Accountability and Transparency review team more than a decade ago, a number of At-Large members submitted an analysis that called on ICANN to recognize the obvious and embrace its inner regulator: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-atrt2-02apr13/pdfNKvEtbrZ3u.pdf Not much has changed. While a few references are dated, the paper's observations and commentaries are as valid now as then. ___________________ Evan Leibovitch, Toronto @evanleibovitch/@el56 On Jul 13, 2018 5:13 PM, "Kan Kaili" <kankaili@gmail.com> wrote: Indeed Goran has said "ICANN is not a regulator" many times. I have heard him saying that myself. However, this is something I disagree with him. Again, in my personal opinion, as long as the positioning of ICANN stays blurry as it is now, the confusion will only accumulate until it creats a crisis. Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com> To: <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 8:33 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista > On 12-07-18 19:56, Kan Kaili wrote: >> In my opinion, ICANN should play the role of a regulator. > > Our esteemed CEO, Göran Marby, has a number of phrases he repeats > fairly often. "ICANN is not a regulator" is one of them. > > Julf > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Hi, Julf, You have raised a very interesting question. However, according to the attached article of mine, the "public interest" is exactly the consumers/end-users' interest, which is to be represented by At-Large. That is, as long as the govermental regulator is fairly elected by the public. Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com> To: "ICANN At-Large list" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 3:21 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista

On 14-07-18 08:23, Kan Kaili wrote:

...

● Such a refocus demands redefining the global public interest as the initiator and driver of ICANN policy rather than its current status of reactive adviso

But who defines "global public interest"? Unfortunately the standard answer tends to be "governments/UN/ITU".

Julf _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Evan, sory but my focus was not on "public interest", but on regulation........did I miss something? As English as a second language participant, please advice --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-07-14 10:04, Evan Leibovitch escribió:

Agonising over the definition of "public interest" has been a primary tactic of distraction. Constantly in search of its perfect definition, ICANN has been able to thoroughly avoid its service.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 at 03:51, Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hi, Julf,

You have raised a very interesting question. However, according to the attached article of mine, the "public interest" is exactly the consumers/end-users' interest, which is to be represented by At-Large. That is, as long as the govermental regulator is fairly elected by the public.

Kaili

----- Original Message ----- From: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com> To: "ICANN At-Large list" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 3:21 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista

...

On 14-07-18 08:23, Kan Kaili wrote:

...

● Such a refocus demands redefining the global public interest as the initiator and driver of ICANN policy rather than its current status of reactive adviso

But who defines "global public interest"? Unfortunately the standard answer tends to be "governments/UN/ITU".

Julf _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

--

Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch or @el56 _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

On Sat, Jul 14, 2018, 12:52 PM Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:

On 14-07-18 08:23, Kan Kaili wrote:

...

● Such a refocus demands redefining the global public interest as the initiator and driver of ICANN policy rather than its current status of reactive adviso

But who defines "global public interest"? Unfortunately the standard answer tends to be "governments/UN/ITU".

No. In the multistakeholder process we definitely Global Public Interest. Your question "who defines..." reverberates questions such as "who defines what is good", and "who defines what is harmful and what is not". These are good questions, but often used to divert the very suggestion of doing good. The complexities in defining a notion shouldn't deter us from chosing an appropriate path. Sivasubramanian M

Julf _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Besides perhaps philosophy a salient reason ICANN doesn't want to appear to be a regulator is because it's potentially a huge job with no apparent income stream. How could they possibly fund such an activity? It could cost billions. It would involve the resolution of the laws and mores of 200 countries. And of course opening themselves up to criticism and worse -- lawsuits, govt action -- for doing it badly or even just singular errors. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

It really isn't a personal opinion; the facts are undeniable by virtue of the admitted regulatory signs. It is in ICANN's power to gift a resource, set the requirements by which one can be gifted, set the rules for use of resource, charge and punish violations of the rules as appropriate and exact a fee for gifting that resource. Anywhere else in Christendom and the known sensate world, those activities are the very definition of a regulator. ICANN has managed to convince itself and would wish to make accommodating idiots of the rest of us because it is politically difficult to do otherwise. I get the politics of it. But to ask me to deny the evidence of my two lying eyes and what is plainly the case in reason and judgment is a bridge too far. The Christian bible has a line in it "in Christ all things are possible". I would add a caution to that declaration: Save and except to take me for an idiot. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 4:13 PM Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com> wrote:

Indeed Goran has said "ICANN is not a regulator" many times. I have heard him saying that myself. However, this is something I disagree with him.

Again, in my personal opinion, as long as the positioning of ICANN stays blurry as it is now, the confusion will only accumulate until it creats a crisis.

Kaili

----- Original Message ----- From: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com> To: <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 8:33 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista

...

On 12-07-18 19:56, Kan Kaili wrote:

...

In my opinion, ICANN should play the role of a regulator.

Our esteemed CEO, Göran Marby, has a number of phrases he repeats fairly often. "ICANN is not a regulator" is one of them.

Julf

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

---

At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 10:52 PM Karl Auerbach, <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:

Yes, ICANN quacks like a regulatory body and walks like a regulatory body.

(Which I guess means that ICANN is a duck?)

My mind keeps going to vulture, but sure... what provides ICANN with immunity from anti-trust laws?

My first instinct would be to note the diversity of ccTLDs, some of which have been business-modeled to directly compete with ICANN's generics. To me it's always been one of the dirty little secrets of the domain world that .co has an entirely different governance / policy model compared to .com... yet neither the public nor most registrants even know a difference exists (let alone know what the differences are). Ditto .ly, .me, .nu, etc. - Evan

So happy to see you in this conversation Karl. For those who don't know Karl Auerbach, my first deep dive into the ICANN phenomenon found me reading Karl Auerbach and Michael Froomkin. Over the years since 2007, I've had several conversations with Karl on numerous topics. Those interactions have always been illuminating and thought-provoking. For those of you who might wish to deepen your understanding of the ICANN phenomenon, I would also recommend Auerbach's paper "Stakeholderism - The Wrong Road for Internet Governance". -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 9:51 PM Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:

Carlton, you are as sane and clear eyed as you have always been. Yes, ICANN quacks like a regulatory body and walks like a regulatory body.

(Which I guess means that ICANN is a duck?)

I agree with you that ICANN regulates - it controls, allocates, revokes, and levies fees. It also shares some other attributes with regulatory bodies: It is effectively unavoidable and its decisions have ripples that go far beyond those whose actions are directly shaped by the body.

As Even L. pointed out ICANN may have legal reasons to try to fend away the word "regulator". That's not surprising, but that kind of wordplay is approaching an exercise of Orwellian Newspeak. And it's nothing new to ICANN: back in year 2000 they tried to label a thing that was clearly an "election" as something else called a "selection" in an attempt to evade California laws regarding the obligations of non-profit/public benefit corporations.

One has to wonder why are intelligent people so afraid to use a description that so clearly applies?

Well, perhaps it is because there is fear of that word reviving a long unanswered question.

As you mention, ICANN shapes internet domain name policies and economics, and even charges "fees" that everyone would agree would be called "taxes" if levied by a governmental body.

A better way to put this is to say that ICANN restrains some trade and encourages other trade. I used that former phrase because it tends to raise the question of "what provides ICANN with immunity from anti-trust laws"?

This paper from year 2003 still remains largely unanswered: http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann-antitrust.pdf

By-the-way, with regard to the vistaprint TLD and the discussion of ICANN application fees - I went through the round a few years ago and did the better part of 100 applications, with each being an almost identical application with only a couple of pages of different marketing info. Yet we got hit with the full $185,000 charge for each one of those even though the review for each was essentially identical. It made me feel that as between ICANN and a highway robber saying "stand and deliver" that the latter was less blameworthy.

--karl--

On 07/13/2018 05:44 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:

...

It really isn't a personal opinion; the facts are undeniable by virtue of the admitted regulatory signs.

It is in ICANN's power to gift a resource, set the requirements by which one can be gifted, set the rules for use of resource, charge and punish violations of the rules as appropriate and exact a fee for gifting that resource. Anywhere else in Christendom and the known sensate world, those activities are the very definition of a regulator.

ICANN has managed to convince itself and would wish to make accommodating idiots of the rest of us because it is politically difficult to do otherwise. I get the politics of it. But to ask me to deny the evidence of my two lying eyes and what is plainly the case in reason and judgment is a bridge too far. The Christian bible has a line in it "in Christ all things are possible". I would add a caution to that declaration: Save and except to take me for an idiot.

-Carlton

============================== /Carlton A Samuels/ /Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/ =============================

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 4:13 PM Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com <mailto:kankaili@gmail.com>> wrote:

Indeed Goran has said "ICANN is not a regulator" many times. I have heard him saying that myself. However, this is something I disagree with him.

Again, in my personal opinion, as long as the positioning of ICANN stays blurry as it is now, the confusion will only accumulate until it creats a crisis.

Kaili

----- Original Message ----- From: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com <mailto:julf@julf.com>> To: <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 8:33 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista

> On 12-07-18 19:56, Kan Kaili wrote: >> In my opinion, ICANN should play the role of a regulator. > > Our esteemed CEO, Göran Marby, has a number of phrases he repeats > fairly often. "ICANN is not a regulator" is one of them. > > Julf > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Multistakeholderism is open to all -- like the Ritz Hotel. (apologies to whoever originated that quote in ref to justice.) -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

On July 16, 2018 at 01:48 6.Internet@gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) wrote:

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 12:16 AM <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:

Multistakeholderism is open to all -- like the Ritz Hotel.

( Understand that it is an anology that isn't perfect). Going by this anology, it merely requires a simple, very simple fix:  Reserve a third of the hotel by unconditional funding to the stakeholder group that can't afford it, and to anyone relatively less privileges even from within even the wealthier stakeholder groups. Then we will find the elusive balance.

I was thinking of how it exists, specifically ICANN, rather than some hypothetical implementation. The problem is that there is no tie-in (GAC possibly excepted but they are advisory) between those who participate and those who are affected by the various policy development processes. Yes in theory anyone, even the poorest internet user, could simply buy themselves plane tickets and hotel rooms etc and participate in the meetings. Given the actual way it's organized one would likely have to do that three times per year for a few years to rise to any level of participation beyond open mikes. But it's open to anyone! Much like the Ritz Hotel. It's no accident that multistakeholderism has been referred to as system which is "of, by, and for the lobbyists"*. In a nutshell get rid of anything remotely resembling popularly elected voting members (even indirectly) and just let the big registries, registrars, and others with financial interests be the stakeholders and do all the policy development and approval. Yes one can identify the occasional exception to that. * That point was essentially on the wikipedia page for multistakeholderism under "Criticisms" but disappeared about a year or so ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance_model... Criticism of multistakeholderism comes from Paul R. Lehto, J.D.{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}}, who fears that in multistakeholderism, those who would be lobbyists become legislators, and nobody else has a vote. Lehto states that "In a democracy, it is a scandal when lobbyists have so much influence that they write the drafts of laws. But in multistakeholder situations they take that scandal to a whole new level: those who would be lobbyists in a democracy (corporations, experts, civil society) become the legislators themselves, and dispense with all public elections and not only write the laws but pass them, enforce them, and in some cases even set up courts of arbitration that are usually conditioned on waiving the right to go to the court system set up by democracies. A vote is just a minimum requirement of justice. Without a vote, law is just force inflicted by the wealthy and powerful. Multistakeholderism is a coup d’etat against democracy by those who would merely be lobbyists in a democratic system."{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}} -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

From: Sivasubramanian M <6.Internet@gmail.com>

​He calls experts and civil society as lobbyists?  Civil Society is Civil Society.

I'm not sure it's useful to pick at wording in a quote unless it really discredits the point being made but yes civil society employs lobbyists, certainly in the US. Does anyone doubt, for example, that in the US the Roman Catholic Church doesn't lobby against abortion, or Planned Parenthood for the status quo of the same issue? And many other organization also of course. I'm not sure if you're trying to say such groups shouldn't be considered part of "Civil Society", or you're saying they are but they don't lobby? Reading you note perhaps you're just interpreting "lobbyist" as a perjorative which it's not, at least not in the US. But they are generally highly interested parties and shouldn't in general be legislators or similar (judges, etc.) But they have every right, within certain boundaries, to lobby those with legislative and legal power. Which is why we try to keep the two roles separate and consider role confusion and conflicts of interest a problem. As to experts of course many are paid to be advocates. I personally worked in research in occupational health and sat at a table with a major insurance company's hired expert. He was absolutely brilliant. As I recall he held a law degree, a medical degree, and a PhD in chemistry. The issue was industrial exposures to toxic chemicals and the insurance company's liability. Some of the points he raised were devastating to the current arguments though could eventually be answered. And we (Harvard) also employed a full-time economist (PhD) whose job was primarily to model the effects of occupational health legislation on the industries involved often reporting before the US congress when relevant legislation was pending. Was he a lobbyist? In a sense, perhaps a lobbyist for facts and numbers in opposition to scare tactics such as some safety measure would put a large number of people out of work. I think the petrochemical, mining, and similar industry would label him a lobbyist of sorts. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

+1 r PS: to me, it is well articulated On 17.07.2018, at 20:35, sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet@gmail.com<mailto:6.internet@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Barry, On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:21 AM <bzs@theworld.com<mailto:bzs@theworld.com>> wrote: From: Sivasubramanian M <6.Internet@gmail.com<mailto:6.Internet@gmail.com>>

​He calls experts and civil society as lobbyists? Civil Society is Civil Society.

I'm not sure it's useful to pick at wording in a quote unless it really discredits the point being made but yes civil society employs lobbyists, certainly in the US. Does anyone doubt, for example, that in the US the Roman Catholic Church doesn't lobby against abortion, or Planned Parenthood for the status quo of the same issue? And many other organization also of course. I'm not sure if you're trying to say such groups shouldn't be considered part of "Civil Society", or you're saying they are but they don't lobby? Yes, they do. Reading you note perhaps you're just interpreting "lobbyist" as a perjorative which it's not, at least not in the US. I must admit, to some extent, but pejorative is too strong. There are cultural differences here. The word 'lobby' gives me a picture of a professional (individual or firm) that deploys more than proportionate resources and influences in the corridors of the legislative assembly to bring about an undue advantage to its principals. In the US, lobbying is probably acknowledged and its influences factored in, which is probably why it is an accepted practice. (To be fair, in other countries influences are exerted less visibly, that is beyond the scope of this thread). What I said about lobbying in ICANN was a bit too strong. Having admitted that, this wasn't to imply that that a certain stakeholder or an entire group shouldn't forcefully present its position around the table. Around the table in the multi-stakeholder process, one stakeholder group has all the liberties to push for a cent per registration as ICANN fees, but the process requires equal liberties to another stakeholder group to argue for the fees to be raised from 43 cents to four dollars. Then a balance arises. But if the influence of one stakeholder group is disproportionately increased to the extent of occupying the other seats apart from what are already reserved for that stakeholder group, in direct and indirect ways, then there is a problem. I was alluding to that. Stakeholders arrive with their own positions, perhaps unfair to other stakeholders. The process brings about a fair solution, fair to all concerned. With this as the intended magic of the process, it is not necessary to lobby across the table or in the sidelines. It is enough to arrive here, state your position. Most of what you say about lobbying happens to be in the legislative / inter-governmental context. This is a different model. It is meant to work differently. There are distortions at the moment that need to be addressed, not by dismissing the entire process summarily. In making this argument, I am still not articulating parts of the arguments well, apologies. Sivasubramanian M But they are generally highly interested parties and shouldn't in general be legislators or similar (judges, etc.) But they have every right, within certain boundaries, to lobby those with legislative and legal power. Which is why we try to keep the two roles separate and consider role confusion and conflicts of interest a problem. As to experts of course many are paid to be advocates. I personally worked in research in occupational health and sat at a table with a major insurance company's hired expert. He was absolutely brilliant. As I recall he held a law degree, a medical degree, and a PhD in chemistry. The issue was industrial exposures to toxic chemicals and the insurance company's liability. Some of the points he raised were devastating to the current arguments though could eventually be answered. And we (Harvard) also employed a full-time economist (PhD) whose job was primarily to model the effects of occupational health legislation on the industries involved often reporting before the US congress when relevant legislation was pending. Was he a lobbyist? In a sense, perhaps a lobbyist for facts and numbers in opposition to scare tactics such as some safety measure would put a large number of people out of work. I think the petrochemical, mining, and similar industry would label him a lobbyist of sorts. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com<mailto:bzs@TheWorld.com> | http://www.TheWorld.com<http://www.theworld.com/> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Thank you Maureen and Roberto. On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 1:45 AM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:

+1 Siva I agree with Roberto

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Roberto Gaetano < roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:

...

+1 r

PS: to me, it is well articulated

On 17.07.2018, at 20:35, sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Barry,

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:21 AM <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:

...

From: Sivasubramanian M <6.Internet@gmail.com>

...

​He calls experts and civil society as lobbyists? Civil Society is Civil Society.

I'm not sure it's useful to pick at wording in a quote unless it really discredits the point being made but yes civil society employs lobbyists, certainly in the US.

Does anyone doubt, for example, that in the US the Roman Catholic Church doesn't lobby against abortion, or Planned Parenthood for the status quo of the same issue? And many other organization also of course.

I'm not sure if you're trying to say such groups shouldn't be considered part of "Civil Society", or you're saying they are but they don't lobby?

Yes, they do.

...

Reading you note perhaps you're just interpreting "lobbyist" as a perjorative which it's not, at least not in the US.

I must admit, to some extent, but pejorative is too strong. There are cultural differences here. The word 'lobby' gives me a picture of a professional (individual or firm) that deploys more than proportionate resources and influences in the corridors of the legislative assembly to bring about an undue advantage to its principals. In the US, lobbying is probably acknowledged and its influences factored in, which is probably why it is an accepted practice. (To be fair, in other countries influences are exerted less visibly, that is beyond the scope of this thread).

What I said about lobbying in ICANN was a bit too strong. Having admitted that, this wasn't to imply that that a certain stakeholder or an entire group shouldn't forcefully present its position around the table. Around the table in the multi-stakeholder process, one stakeholder group has all the liberties to push for a cent per registration as ICANN fees, but the process requires equal liberties to another stakeholder group to argue for the fees to be raised from 43 cents to four dollars. Then a balance arises.

But if the influence of one stakeholder group is disproportionately increased to the extent of occupying the other seats apart from what are already reserved for that stakeholder group, in direct and indirect ways, then there is a problem. I was alluding to that.

Stakeholders arrive with their own positions, perhaps unfair to other stakeholders. The process brings about a fair solution, fair to all concerned. With this as the intended magic of the process, it is not necessary to lobby across the table or in the sidelines. It is enough to arrive here, state your position.

Most of what you say about lobbying happens to be in the legislative / inter-governmental context. This is a different model. It is meant to work differently. There are distortions at the moment that need to be addressed, not by dismissing the entire process summarily.

In making this argument, I am still not articulating parts of the arguments well, apologies.

Sivasubramanian M

...

But they are generally highly interested parties and shouldn't in general be legislators or similar (judges, etc.)

But they have every right, within certain boundaries, to lobby those with legislative and legal power.

Which is why we try to keep the two roles separate and consider role confusion and conflicts of interest a problem.

As to experts of course many are paid to be advocates.

I personally worked in research in occupational health and sat at a table with a major insurance company's hired expert.

He was absolutely brilliant. As I recall he held a law degree, a medical degree, and a PhD in chemistry. The issue was industrial exposures to toxic chemicals and the insurance company's liability.

Some of the points he raised were devastating to the current arguments though could eventually be answered.

And we (Harvard) also employed a full-time economist (PhD) whose job was primarily to model the effects of occupational health legislation on the industries involved often reporting before the US congress when relevant legislation was pending.

Was he a lobbyist? In a sense, perhaps a lobbyist for facts and numbers in opposition to scare tactics such as some safety measure would put a large number of people out of work. I think the petrochemical, mining, and similar industry would label him a lobbyist of sorts.

-- -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com <http://www.theworld.com/> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

-- Sivasubramanian M Please send all replies to 6.Internet@gmail.com

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 6:18 AM <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:

I think I understand what you are saying well enough and appreciate it.

My concern is: By what mechanism would this current system be reformed?

If, as not only I have alluded to, it suffers from industry capture what mechanism would improve that?

As I said the only mechanism I can think of is altruism which isn't generally reliable tho possible. Again, there are quite a few very fair-minded individuals involved.

One could say I just argued myself into a corner.

If no mechanism exists or is likely then why discuss it?

AL HARRISON Do you know what we’re doing here? KATHERINE We’re trying to put a man in space, sir. AL HARRISON What I’m asking you..what I’m asking everyone one in that room, all my geniuses, is to look beyond the numbers. To look around them. Through them. For answers to questions we don’t even know to ask. Math that doesn’t yet exist. from Hidden Figures - 5/9/2016 - Shooting Draft:

Perhaps the only hope is taking to the barricades, or seeking some other external force majeur. Neither are particularly appealing.

On July 18, 2018 at 00:05 6.internet@gmail.com (sivasubramanian muthusamy) wrote:

...

Dear Barry,

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:21 AM <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:

From: Sivasubramanian M <6.Internet@gmail.com> >​He calls experts and civil society as lobbyists? Civil Society is Civil >Society.

I'm not sure it's useful to pick at wording in a quote unless it really discredits the point being made but yes civil society employs lobbyists, certainly in the US.

Does anyone doubt, for example, that in the US the Roman Catholic Church doesn't lobby against abortion, or Planned Parenthood for the status quo of the same issue? And many other organization also of course.

I'm not sure if you're trying to say such groups shouldn't be considered part of "Civil Society", or you're saying they are but they don't lobby?

Yes, they do.

Reading you note perhaps you're just interpreting "lobbyist" as a perjorative which it's not, at least not in the US.

I must admit, to some extent, but pejorative is too strong. There are cultural differences here. The word 'lobby' gives me a picture of a professional (individual or firm) that deploys more than proportionate resources and influences in the corridors of the legislative assembly to bring about an undue advantage to its principals. In the US, lobbying is probably acknowledged and its influences factored in, which is probably why it is an accepted practice. (To be fair, in other countries influences are exerted less visibly, that is beyond the scope of this thread).

What I said about lobbying in ICANN was a bit too strong. Having admitted that, this wasn't to imply that that a certain stakeholder or an entire group shouldn't forcefully present its position around the table. Around the table in the multi-stakeholder process, one stakeholder group has all the liberties to push for a cent per registration as ICANN fees, but the process requires equal liberties to another stakeholder group to argue for the fees to be raised from 43 cents to four dollars. Then a balance arises.

But if the influence of one stakeholder group is disproportionately increased to the extent of occupying the other seats apart from what are already reserved for that stakeholder group, in direct and indirect ways, then there is a problem. I was alluding to that.

Stakeholders arrive with their own positions, perhaps unfair to other stakeholders. The process brings about a fair solution, fair to all concerned. With this as the intended magic of the process, it is not necessary to lobby across the table or in the sidelines. It is enough to arrive here, state your position.

Most of what you say about lobbying happens to be in the legislative / inter-governmental context. This is a different model. It is meant to work differently. There are distortions at the moment that need to be addressed, not by dismissing the entire process summarily.

In making this argument, I am still not articulating parts of the arguments well, apologies.

Sivasubramanian M

But they are generally highly interested parties and shouldn't in general be legislators or similar (judges, etc.)

But they have every right, within certain boundaries, to lobby those with legislative and legal power.

Which is why we try to keep the two roles separate and consider role confusion and conflicts of interest a problem.

As to experts of course many are paid to be advocates.

I personally worked in research in occupational health and sat at a table with a major insurance company's hired expert.

He was absolutely brilliant. As I recall he held a law degree, a medical degree, and a PhD in chemistry. The issue was industrial exposures to toxic chemicals and the insurance company's liability.

Some of the points he raised were devastating to the current arguments though could eventually be answered.

And we (Harvard) also employed a full-time economist (PhD) whose job was primarily to model the effects of occupational health legislation on the industries involved often reporting before the US congress when relevant legislation was pending.

Was he a lobbyist? In a sense, perhaps a lobbyist for facts and numbers in opposition to scare tactics such as some safety measure would put a large number of people out of work. I think the petrochemical, mining, and similar industry would label him a lobbyist of sorts.

-- -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http:// www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

-- -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

+1 - very well put. Thanks Jacqueline On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, 2:36 PM sivasubramanian muthusamy, < 6.internet@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Barry,

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:21 AM <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:

...

From: Sivasubramanian M <6.Internet@gmail.com>

...

​He calls experts and civil society as lobbyists? Civil Society is Civil Society.

I'm not sure it's useful to pick at wording in a quote unless it really discredits the point being made but yes civil society employs lobbyists, certainly in the US.

Does anyone doubt, for example, that in the US the Roman Catholic Church doesn't lobby against abortion, or Planned Parenthood for the status quo of the same issue? And many other organization also of course.

I'm not sure if you're trying to say such groups shouldn't be considered part of "Civil Society", or you're saying they are but they don't lobby?

Yes, they do.

...

Reading you note perhaps you're just interpreting "lobbyist" as a perjorative which it's not, at least not in the US.

I must admit, to some extent, but pejorative is too strong. There are cultural differences here. The word 'lobby' gives me a picture of a professional (individual or firm) that deploys more than proportionate resources and influences in the corridors of the legislative assembly to bring about an undue advantage to its principals. In the US, lobbying is probably acknowledged and its influences factored in, which is probably why it is an accepted practice. (To be fair, in other countries influences are exerted less visibly, that is beyond the scope of this thread).

What I said about lobbying in ICANN was a bit too strong. Having admitted that, this wasn't to imply that that a certain stakeholder or an entire group shouldn't forcefully present its position around the table. Around the table in the multi-stakeholder process, one stakeholder group has all the liberties to push for a cent per registration as ICANN fees, but the process requires equal liberties to another stakeholder group to argue for the fees to be raised from 43 cents to four dollars. Then a balance arises.

But if the influence of one stakeholder group is disproportionately increased to the extent of occupying the other seats apart from what are already reserved for that stakeholder group, in direct and indirect ways, then there is a problem. I was alluding to that.

Stakeholders arrive with their own positions, perhaps unfair to other stakeholders. The process brings about a fair solution, fair to all concerned. With this as the intended magic of the process, it is not necessary to lobby across the table or in the sidelines. It is enough to arrive here, state your position.

Most of what you say about lobbying happens to be in the legislative / inter-governmental context. This is a different model. It is meant to work differently. There are distortions at the moment that need to be addressed, not by dismissing the entire process summarily.

In making this argument, I am still not articulating parts of the arguments well, apologies.

Sivasubramanian M

...

But they are generally highly interested parties and shouldn't in general be legislators or similar (judges, etc.)

But they have every right, within certain boundaries, to lobby those with legislative and legal power.

Which is why we try to keep the two roles separate and consider role confusion and conflicts of interest a problem.

As to experts of course many are paid to be advocates.

I personally worked in research in occupational health and sat at a table with a major insurance company's hired expert.

He was absolutely brilliant. As I recall he held a law degree, a medical degree, and a PhD in chemistry. The issue was industrial exposures to toxic chemicals and the insurance company's liability.

Some of the points he raised were devastating to the current arguments though could eventually be answered.

And we (Harvard) also employed a full-time economist (PhD) whose job was primarily to model the effects of occupational health legislation on the industries involved often reporting before the US congress when relevant legislation was pending.

Was he a lobbyist? In a sense, perhaps a lobbyist for facts and numbers in opposition to scare tactics such as some safety measure would put a large number of people out of work. I think the petrochemical, mining, and similar industry would label him a lobbyist of sorts.

-- -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Roberto, I can’t agree more with you. Excellent and precise words. I do support your statement and insist on the civil society to avoid infiltration of lobbyists for political and/or financial interests. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Le 16 juil. 2018 à 16:28, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> a écrit :

It is of course a risk that the multi-stakeholder model be tilted towards the interests of one part of the stakeholders - this is why, incidentally, Fadi was talking about *global* *equal* multi-stakeholder (“GEMS") model. That there is a potential corruption of the model is no good reason for rejecting it, in particular in lack of a better system. So I would argue that the way to go is to make sure that the voice of the different stakeholders compose with the requirement of being “global” (meaning all have a chance to get to the table) and “equal” (meaning all have the same voice). In practice, civil society, because of the inherent limitations about financial power, should be subsidised to participate, and civil society itself has to make sure that it avoids infiltration of lobbyists among its rank and file. Cheers, R

...

On 16.07.2018, at 00:05, bzs@theworld.com <mailto:bzs@theworld.com> wrote:

On July 16, 2018 at 01:48 6.Internet@gmail.com <mailto:6.Internet@gmail.com>(Sivasubramanian M) wrote:

...

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 12:16 AM <bzs@theworld.com <mailto:bzs@theworld.com>> wrote:

Multistakeholderism is open to all -- like the Ritz Hotel.

( Understand that it is an anology that isn't perfect). Going by this anology, it merely requires a simple, very simple fix: Reserve a third of the hotel by unconditional funding to the stakeholder group that can't afford it, and to anyone relatively less privileges even from within even the wealthier stakeholder groups. Then we will find the elusive balance.

I was thinking of how it exists, specifically ICANN, rather than some hypothetical implementation.

The problem is that there is no tie-in (GAC possibly excepted but they are advisory) between those who participate and those who are affected by the various policy development processes.

Yes in theory anyone, even the poorest internet user, could simply buy themselves plane tickets and hotel rooms etc and participate in the meetings.

Given the actual way it's organized one would likely have to do that three times per year for a few years to rise to any level of participation beyond open mikes.

But it's open to anyone! Much like the Ritz Hotel.

It's no accident that multistakeholderism has been referred to as system which is "of, by, and for the lobbyists"*.

In a nutshell get rid of anything remotely resembling popularly elected voting members (even indirectly) and just let the big registries, registrars, and others with financial interests be the stakeholders and do all the policy development and approval.

Yes one can identify the occasional exception to that.

* That point was essentially on the wikipedia page for multistakeholderism under "Criticisms" but disappeared about a year or so ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance_model... <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance_model...>

Criticism of multistakeholderism comes from Paul R. Lehto, J.D.{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}}, who fears that in multistakeholderism, those who would be lobbyists become legislators, and nobody else has a vote. Lehto states that "In a democracy, it is a scandal when lobbyists have so much influence that they write the drafts of laws. But in multistakeholder situations they take that scandal to a whole new level: those who would be lobbyists in a democracy (corporations, experts, civil society) become the legislators themselves, and dispense with all public elections and not only write the laws but pass them, enforce them, and in some cases even set up courts of arbitration that are usually conditioned on waiving the right to go to the court system set up by democracies. A vote is just a minimum requirement of justice. Without a vote, law is just force inflicted by the wealthy and powerful. Multistakeholderism is a coup d’etat against democracy by those who would merely be lobbyists in a democratic system."{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}} -- -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com <mailto:bzs@TheWorld.com> | http://www.TheWorld.com <http://www.theworld.com/> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large>

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/>

---

At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Roberto: As you know I've been in opposition to the "stakeholder" model of governance since before ICANN was created.  And as many foresaw way back then, certain "stakeholder" groups have become rather more powerful than others to the degree that one can fairly argue that ICANN is a regulatory/governance body that has been captured by those who it purports to regulate. Let us not forget that when ICANN was created promises were made that a majority of the seats on the board of directors would be chosen by the public.  That promise remains unfulfilled.  The community of internet users ought to have a loud and commanding voice in ICANN yet the stakeholder model has left the community of internet users with little more than an easily ignored whisper. One of the things that amuses me, or concerns me, is that stakeholder thinking tend to pre-conceive what a given person or thing might be interested in - in other words, it ordains, without ever consulting the person involved, where a person's "stake" lays.  That kind of top-down-imposition is, well, not very bottom-up. Let's look at my own case.  Which "stakeholder" pigeon hole box should I be stuffed into?  Or, should I be allowed to operated as several "stakeholders" and thus (unfairly) multiply my voice?   - I am an individual   - I own for profit business corporations (both as a founder or as a shareholder.)   - I am a member of public-interest groups.   - I live in a country (and citizen of two.)   - I and my corporations register domain names.   - I and my corporations have trademarks, copyrights, patents and other intellectual property.   - I and my corporations have public IP address space (allocated from Jon Postel, not by the RIRs.)   - I am an attorney who is involved in intellectual property matters.   - I have written full internet standards that continue wide use on a daily basis.   - I have property (partial ownership) interests in domain name registries and registrars of ICANN granted TLDs. I am hardly unique in this way.  Every person is a bundle of interests that are often at odds with one another.  It ought to be up to each individual to reconcile these interests, to formulate a vote based on a self-made evaluation of which personal interest is more important and ought to prevail.  Stakeholderism deprives people of the right to reconcile their interests; stakeholderism imposes an externally pre-made decision onto that person about what are that person's most important concerns. Stuffing me into one stakeholder box or another the organization (or whoever is creating that taxonomy) is a Procrustean act that arbitrarily pre-decides which of my interests best express my views. Stakeholderism, like Procrustes, chops off our arms and stretches our legs in order to make each of us fit onto whatever iron bed the organization feels is most appropriate. (For those of you who wonder about "Procrustean" - here's the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes ) I suggest that the atomic unit of interest is the individual human being.   And as a consequence, the only thing that should have a countable vote in matters of internet governance are individual human beings.  Anything else, corporations, domain name owners, intellectual property warriors, etc ought to have no voting authority - but will, of course, retain the power to articulate arguments to try to convince individual people to use their vote in certain ways.     --karl-- On 7/16/18 8:28 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

It is of course a risk that the multi-stakeholder model be tilted towards the interests of one part of the stakeholders - this is why, incidentally, Fadi was talking about *global* *equal* multi-stakeholder (“GEMS") model. That there is a potential corruption of the model is no good reason for rejecting it, in particular in lack of a better system. So I would argue that the way to go is to make sure that the voice of the different stakeholders compose with the requirement of being “global” (meaning all have a chance to get to the table) and “equal” (meaning all have the same voice). In practice, civil society, because of the inherent limitations about financial power, should be subsidised to participate, and civil society itself has to make sure that it avoids infiltration of lobbyists among its rank and file. Cheers, R

...

On 16.07.2018, at 00:05, bzs@theworld.com <mailto:bzs@theworld.com> wrote:

On July 16, 2018 at 01:486.Internet@gmail.com <mailto:6.Internet@gmail.com>(Sivasubramanian M) wrote:

...

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 12:16 AM <bzs@theworld.com <mailto:bzs@theworld.com>> wrote:

   Multistakeholderism is open to all -- like the Ritz Hotel.

( Understand that it is an anology that isn't perfect). Going by this anology, it merely requires a simple, very simple fix:  Reserve a third of the hotel by unconditional funding to the stakeholder group that can't afford it, and to anyone relatively less privileges even from within even the wealthier stakeholder groups. Then we will find the elusive balance.

I was thinking of how it exists, specifically ICANN, rather than some hypothetical implementation.

The problem is that there is no tie-in (GAC possibly excepted but they are advisory) between those who participate and those who are affected by the various policy development processes.

Yes in theory anyone, even the poorest internet user, could simply buy themselves plane tickets and hotel rooms etc and participate in the meetings.

Given the actual way it's organized one would likely have to do that three times per year for a few years to rise to any level of participation beyond open mikes.

But it's open to anyone! Much like the Ritz Hotel.

It's no accident that multistakeholderism has been referred to as system which is "of, by, and for the lobbyists"*.

In a nutshell get rid of anything remotely resembling popularly elected voting members (even indirectly) and just let the big registries, registrars, and others with financial interests be the stakeholders and do all the policy development and approval.

Yes one can identify the occasional exception to that.

* That point was essentially on the wikipedia page for multistakeholderism under "Criticisms" but disappeared about a year or so ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance_model...

   Criticism of multistakeholderism comes from Paul R. Lehto,    J.D.{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}}, who fears that in    multistakeholderism, those who would be lobbyists become    legislators, and nobody else has a vote. Lehto states that "In a    democracy, it is a scandal when lobbyists have so much influence    that they write the drafts of laws. But in multistakeholder    situations they take that scandal to a whole new level: those who    would be lobbyists in a democracy (corporations, experts, civil    society) become the legislators themselves, and dispense with all    public elections and not only write the laws but pass them,    enforce them, and in some cases even set up courts of arbitration    that are usually conditioned on waiving the right to go to the    court system set up by democracies. A vote is just a minimum    requirement of justice. Without a vote, law is just force    inflicted by the wealthy and powerful. Multistakeholderism is a    coup d’etat against democracy by those who would merely be    lobbyists in a democratic system."{{Citation needed|date=March    2014}} --        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    |bzs@TheWorld.com <mailto:bzs@TheWorld.com>            |http://www.TheWorld.com <http://www.theworld.com/> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD       | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo* _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site:http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/>

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Hi, Karl and Roberto, As I understand, even democracy itself is only a "least bad" system. Thus, no matter it is one-man-one-vote, or it is a multi-stakeholder structure, neither could be perfect. Furthermore, I do not suppose a better answer could be found any time soon. However, as I see it, ICANN's beggest problem is (as Karl put it): certain "stakeholder" groups have become rather more powerful than others to the degree that one can fairly argue that ICANN is a regulatory/governance body that has been captured by those who it purports to regulate. Again, as I see it, this is the reason that so many things could go wrong with ICANN. Therefore, if this is the case, what should and could we do about it? Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: Roberto Gaetano To: Karl Auerbach Cc: At Large Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 4:21 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista Karl, My personal opinion is that the thorough explanation that you give about an individual carrying different hats is exactly the explanation why the individual vote will not work. That will oblige the individual to make a synthesis of the different needs, opinions and contributions he/she has and summarise this into one single vote, reducing the multiplicity of shades, colors and sounds to one single statement. We will lose the palette to reduce this to one single position or opinion that will summarise what is a variety of interest into what is the major factor. Time has passed but some might remember the change from the constituency-based GNSO structure to the stakeholder-group-based one. My argument, times and again, was that even one large company like IBM (I use this example because I happen to have worked there for quite a long time) cannot synthesise opinions and contributions to the policy development in one single statement or vote. The legal department might have some ideas, the marketing others, the developers others again, and so on. We are missing the opportunity to take advantage of this plurality of contributions if we remain stuck in the “old” constituency system that is resistant to change because it is prisoner of the liturgy of the vote. This is the essence of the problem, and if I understand correctly the essence of our disagreement. I reject a system by which everything is reduced to a vote, obliging the synthesis to be made at a local level by what would be a variety of contributions that will be prevented from having room for discussion. I am a participant to the ICANN world with at least two hats: one as Chair of the Board of a DNS Registry and one as long standing champion for user participation (I am also a registrant, an occasional participant to protocol definition, and more, but all this to a minor extent). I have perfectly clear what is the interest of PIR and what is in the interest of an individual user, and I want to be able to have a structure where, being member of two different stakeholder group, I can participate and contribute in both and not be obliged to make a choice or a vote silencing one part of my complex personal ecosystem. Personally, I believe that (as I said at the moment of the GNSO Review) if we want to change we need to transition from a state of mind that is hostage to the obsession of the power of the vote into a state of mind where what is important is the force of the ideas and the value of the contributions - even contradictory. A global, equal, multi-stakeholder (GEMS) system is, in my opinion, the only way to achieve that. If there are other new systems, I am ready to discuss the matter, but the return to the old way of reducing everything to a vote is not an alternative that is appealing to me. Cheers, Roberto On 16.07.2018, at 21:18, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote: Roberto: As you know I've been in opposition to the "stakeholder" model of governance since before ICANN was created. And as many foresaw way back then, certain "stakeholder" groups have become rather more powerful than others to the degree that one can fairly argue that ICANN is a regulatory/governance body that has been captured by those who it purports to regulate. Let us not forget that when ICANN was created promises were made that a majority of the seats on the board of directors would be chosen by the public. That promise remains unfulfilled. The community of internet users ought to have a loud and commanding voice in ICANN yet the stakeholder model has left the community of internet users with little more than an easily ignored whisper. One of the things that amuses me, or concerns me, is that stakeholder thinking tend to pre-conceive what a given person or thing might be interested in - in other words, it ordains, without ever consulting the person involved, where a person's "stake" lays. That kind of top-down-imposition is, well, not very bottom-up. Let's look at my own case. Which "stakeholder" pigeon hole box should I be stuffed into? Or, should I be allowed to operated as several "stakeholders" and thus (unfairly) multiply my voice? - I am an individual - I own for profit business corporations (both as a founder or as a shareholder.) - I am a member of public-interest groups. - I live in a country (and citizen of two.) - I and my corporations register domain names. - I and my corporations have trademarks, copyrights, patents and other intellectual property. - I and my corporations have public IP address space (allocated from Jon Postel, not by the RIRs.) - I am an attorney who is involved in intellectual property matters. - I have written full internet standards that continue wide use on a daily basis. - I have property (partial ownership) interests in domain name registries and registrars of ICANN granted TLDs. I am hardly unique in this way. Every person is a bundle of interests that are often at odds with one another. It ought to be up to each individual to reconcile these interests, to formulate a vote based on a self-made evaluation of which personal interest is more important and ought to prevail. Stakeholderism deprives people of the right to reconcile their interests; stakeholderism imposes an externally pre-made decision onto that person about what are that person's most important concerns. Stuffing me into one stakeholder box or another the organization (or whoever is creating that taxonomy) is a Procrustean act that arbitrarily pre-decides which of my interests best express my views. Stakeholderism, like Procrustes, chops off our arms and stretches our legs in order to make each of us fit onto whatever iron bed the organization feels is most appropriate. (For those of you who wonder about "Procrustean" - here's the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes ) I suggest that the atomic unit of interest is the individual human being. And as a consequence, the only thing that should have a countable vote in matters of internet governance are individual human beings. Anything else, corporations, domain name owners, intellectual property warriors, etc ought to have no voting authority - but will, of course, retain the power to articulate arguments to try to convince individual people to use their vote in certain ways. --karl-- On 7/16/18 8:28 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote: It is of course a risk that the multi-stakeholder model be tilted towards the interests of one part of the stakeholders - this is why, incidentally, Fadi was talking about *global* *equal* multi-stakeholder (“GEMS") model. That there is a potential corruption of the model is no good reason for rejecting it, in particular in lack of a better system. So I would argue that the way to go is to make sure that the voice of the different stakeholders compose with the requirement of being “global” (meaning all have a chance to get to the table) and “equal” (meaning all have the same voice). In practice, civil society, because of the inherent limitations about financial power, should be subsidised to participate, and civil society itself has to make sure that it avoids infiltration of lobbyists among its rank and file. Cheers, R On 16.07.2018, at 00:05, bzs@theworld.com wrote: On July 16, 2018 at 01:48 6.Internet@gmail.com(Sivasubramanian M) wrote: On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 12:16 AM <bzs@theworld.com> wrote: Multistakeholderism is open to all -- like the Ritz Hotel. ( Understand that it is an anology that isn't perfect). Going by this anology, it merely requires a simple, very simple fix: Reserve a third of the hotel by unconditional funding to the stakeholder group that can't afford it, and to anyone relatively less privileges even from within even the wealthier stakeholder groups. Then we will find the elusive balance. I was thinking of how it exists, specifically ICANN, rather than some hypothetical implementation. The problem is that there is no tie-in (GAC possibly excepted but they are advisory) between those who participate and those who are affected by the various policy development processes. Yes in theory anyone, even the poorest internet user, could simply buy themselves plane tickets and hotel rooms etc and participate in the meetings. Given the actual way it's organized one would likely have to do that three times per year for a few years to rise to any level of participation beyond open mikes. But it's open to anyone! Much like the Ritz Hotel. It's no accident that multistakeholderism has been referred to as system which is "of, by, and for the lobbyists"*. In a nutshell get rid of anything remotely resembling popularly elected voting members (even indirectly) and just let the big registries, registrars, and others with financial interests be the stakeholders and do all the policy development and approval. Yes one can identify the occasional exception to that. * That point was essentially on the wikipedia page for multistakeholderism under "Criticisms" but disappeared about a year or so ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance_model... Criticism of multistakeholderism comes from Paul R. Lehto, J.D.{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}}, who fears that in multistakeholderism, those who would be lobbyists become legislators, and nobody else has a vote. Lehto states that "In a democracy, it is a scandal when lobbyists have so much influence that they write the drafts of laws. But in multistakeholder situations they take that scandal to a whole new level: those who would be lobbyists in a democracy (corporations, experts, civil society) become the legislators themselves, and dispense with all public elections and not only write the laws but pass them, enforce them, and in some cases even set up courts of arbitration that are usually conditioned on waiving the right to go to the court system set up by democracies. A vote is just a minimum requirement of justice. Without a vote, law is just force inflicted by the wealthy and powerful. Multistakeholderism is a coup d’etat against democracy by those who would merely be lobbyists in a democratic system."{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}} -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

I would only add question how to achieve GEMS, it looks like crucial issue in my opinion Regards Nenad Marinkovic From: At-Large [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alejandro Pisanty Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 00:57 To: Roberto Gaetano Cc: At Large Subject: Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista +1 Alejandro Pisanty On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote: Karl, My personal opinion is that the thorough explanation that you give about an individual carrying different hats is exactly the explanation why the individual vote will not work. That will oblige the individual to make a synthesis of the different needs, opinions and contributions he/she has and summarise this into one single vote, reducing the multiplicity of shades, colors and sounds to one single statement. We will lose the palette to reduce this to one single position or opinion that will summarise what is a variety of interest into what is the major factor. Time has passed but some might remember the change from the constituency-based GNSO structure to the stakeholder-group-based one. My argument, times and again, was that even one large company like IBM (I use this example because I happen to have worked there for quite a long time) cannot synthesise opinions and contributions to the policy development in one single statement or vote. The legal department might have some ideas, the marketing others, the developers others again, and so on. We are missing the opportunity to take advantage of this plurality of contributions if we remain stuck in the “old” constituency system that is resistant to change because it is prisoner of the liturgy of the vote. This is the essence of the problem, and if I understand correctly the essence of our disagreement. I reject a system by which everything is reduced to a vote, obliging the synthesis to be made at a local level by what would be a variety of contributions that will be prevented from having room for discussion. I am a participant to the ICANN world with at least two hats: one as Chair of the Board of a DNS Registry and one as long standing champion for user participation (I am also a registrant, an occasional participant to protocol definition, and more, but all this to a minor extent). I have perfectly clear what is the interest of PIR and what is in the interest of an individual user, and I want to be able to have a structure where, being member of two different stakeholder group, I can participate and contribute in both and not be obliged to make a choice or a vote silencing one part of my complex personal ecosystem. Personally, I believe that (as I said at the moment of the GNSO Review) if we want to change we need to transition from a state of mind that is hostage to the obsession of the power of the vote into a state of mind where what is important is the force of the ideas and the value of the contributions - even contradictory. A global, equal, multi-stakeholder (GEMS) system is, in my opinion, the only way to achieve that. If there are other new systems, I am ready to discuss the matter, but the return to the old way of reducing everything to a vote is not an alternative that is appealing to me. Cheers, Roberto On 16.07.2018, at 21:18, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote: Roberto: As you know I've been in opposition to the "stakeholder" model of governance since before ICANN was created. And as many foresaw way back then, certain "stakeholder" groups have become rather more powerful than others to the degree that one can fairly argue that ICANN is a regulatory/governance body that has been captured by those who it purports to regulate. Let us not forget that when ICANN was created promises were made that a majority of the seats on the board of directors would be chosen by the public. That promise remains unfulfilled. The community of internet users ought to have a loud and commanding voice in ICANN yet the stakeholder model has left the community of internet users with little more than an easily ignored whisper. One of the things that amuses me, or concerns me, is that stakeholder thinking tend to pre-conceive what a given person or thing might be interested in - in other words, it ordains, without ever consulting the person involved, where a person's "stake" lays. That kind of top-down-imposition is, well, not very bottom-up. Let's look at my own case. Which "stakeholder" pigeon hole box should I be stuffed into? Or, should I be allowed to operated as several "stakeholders" and thus (unfairly) multiply my voice? - I am an individual - I own for profit business corporations (both as a founder or as a shareholder.) - I am a member of public-interest groups. - I live in a country (and citizen of two.) - I and my corporations register domain names. - I and my corporations have trademarks, copyrights, patents and other intellectual property. - I and my corporations have public IP address space (allocated from Jon Postel, not by the RIRs.) - I am an attorney who is involved in intellectual property matters. - I have written full internet standards that continue wide use on a daily basis. - I have property (partial ownership) interests in domain name registries and registrars of ICANN granted TLDs. I am hardly unique in this way. Every person is a bundle of interests that are often at odds with one another. It ought to be up to each individual to reconcile these interests, to formulate a vote based on a self-made evaluation of which personal interest is more important and ought to prevail. Stakeholderism deprives people of the right to reconcile their interests; stakeholderism imposes an externally pre-made decision onto that person about what are that person's most important concerns. Stuffing me into one stakeholder box or another the organization (or whoever is creating that taxonomy) is a Procrustean act that arbitrarily pre-decides which of my interests best express my views. Stakeholderism, like Procrustes, chops off our arms and stretches our legs in order to make each of us fit onto whatever iron bed the organization feels is most appropriate. (For those of you who wonder about "Procrustean" - here's the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes ) I suggest that the atomic unit of interest is the individual human being. And as a consequence, the only thing that should have a countable vote in matters of internet governance are individual human beings. Anything else, corporations, domain name owners, intellectual property warriors, etc ought to have no voting authority - but will, of course, retain the power to articulate arguments to try to convince individual people to use their vote in certain ways. --karl-- On 7/16/18 8:28 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote: It is of course a risk that the multi-stakeholder model be tilted towards the interests of one part of the stakeholders - this is why, incidentally, Fadi was talking about *global* *equal* multi-stakeholder (“GEMS") model. That there is a potential corruption of the model is no good reason for rejecting it, in particular in lack of a better system. So I would argue that the way to go is to make sure that the voice of the different stakeholders compose with the requirement of being “global” (meaning all have a chance to get to the table) and “equal” (meaning all have the same voice). In practice, civil society, because of the inherent limitations about financial power, should be subsidised to participate, and civil society itself has to make sure that it avoids infiltration of lobbyists among its rank and file. Cheers, R On 16.07.2018, at 00:05, bzs@theworld.com wrote: On July 16, 2018 at 01:48 <mailto:6.Internet@gmail.com> 6.Internet@gmail.com(Sivasubramanian M) wrote: On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 12:16 AM <bzs@theworld.com> wrote: Multistakeholderism is open to all -- like the Ritz Hotel. ( Understand that it is an anology that isn't perfect). Going by this anology, it merely requires a simple, very simple fix: Reserve a third of the hotel by unconditional funding to the stakeholder group that can't afford it, and to anyone relatively less privileges even from within even the wealthier stakeholder groups. Then we will find the elusive balance. I was thinking of how it exists, specifically ICANN, rather than some hypothetical implementation. The problem is that there is no tie-in (GAC possibly excepted but they are advisory) between those who participate and those who are affected by the various policy development processes. Yes in theory anyone, even the poorest internet user, could simply buy themselves plane tickets and hotel rooms etc and participate in the meetings. Given the actual way it's organized one would likely have to do that three times per year for a few years to rise to any level of participation beyond open mikes. But it's open to anyone! Much like the Ritz Hotel. It's no accident that multistakeholderism has been referred to as system which is "of, by, and for the lobbyists"*. In a nutshell get rid of anything remotely resembling popularly elected voting members (even indirectly) and just let the big registries, registrars, and others with financial interests be the stakeholders and do all the policy development and approval. Yes one can identify the occasional exception to that. * That point was essentially on the wikipedia page for multistakeholderism under "Criticisms" but disappeared about a year or so ago. <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance_model...> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance_model... Criticism of multistakeholderism comes from Paul R. Lehto, J.D.{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}}, who fears that in multistakeholderism, those who would be lobbyists become legislators, and nobody else has a vote. Lehto states that "In a democracy, it is a scandal when lobbyists have so much influence that they write the drafts of laws. But in multistakeholder situations they take that scandal to a whole new level: those who would be lobbyists in a democracy (corporations, experts, civil society) become the legislators themselves, and dispense with all public elections and not only write the laws but pass them, enforce them, and in some cases even set up courts of arbitration that are usually conditioned on waiving the right to go to the court system set up by democracies. A vote is just a minimum requirement of justice. Without a vote, law is just force inflicted by the wealthy and powerful. Multistakeholderism is a coup d’etat against democracy by those who would merely be lobbyists in a democratic system."{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}} -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | <mailto:bzs@TheWorld.com> bzs@TheWorld.com | <http://www.theworld.com/> http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: <http://atlarge.icann.org/> http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"Individual vote" is a red herring. I assume we've all heard of representative democracy structures. For example the justices on the US supreme court are not elected. But they are each nominated by the president who is popularly elected (more or less), and require approval of the senate and senators are popularly elected. The game-theoretic point is whether or not there is any (useful) path between the policy development and approval process back to individuals, not that the path is direct. I'd say right now with ICANN there is no such path. There isn't even a plausible market-based path as one might have with corporations. For example if you don't like some company's policies perhaps organize a boycott. But since ICANN is in effect a global monopoly and registries generally operate TLDs as monopolies on that TLD it's just not a realistic scenario even if one could imagine some hypothetical market action. And this certainly shouldn't be the only path to influence. Also, corporations which are public have shareholders and shareholder votes, etc. and it's not unheard of for those shareholders to, for example, sack their board or members of their board. I'll assert this is a problem in ICANN's governance structure. Let's not just argue for the sake of arguing. There might be a very real problem here. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Hi, that is actually not a thought experiment. Individual users can't just effect a change they wish on ICANN any more than they can do the same in their countries, states, counties, cities, neighborhoods or apartment buildings, nor in their schools, companies, the networks they build or the trains they run. Scaling requires some aggregation. As you well know, when you want more power for a train you may first gain some by building a bigger locomotive; but at some point you need to stop, and bring in more locomotives. Citizens aggregate in neighborhoos, quarters, boroughs, cities, states, etc., and in firms, parties, clubs, and so on (you know that: you build and test networks and components for scaling, for a living.) The whole basic design of the Internet is an exercise in scaling by aggregation, a very fortunate one. Canetti's book on masses brings out even the most basic forms of aggregation among humans. There may be room for changing or improvement in the way stakeholders are aggregated (as well as for many other issues) but not by devolving to individuals. Add to that the needs of transparency and accountability **among stakeholders** and the basic needs of assuming everyone is honest but better to "trust and verify" and you just cannot go to the "atoms" alone. Interestingly, things have worked out for 20 years now; as said previously, that assumption has been tested enough by reality and left much to the side. Alejandro Pisanty On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:

On 7/17/18 11:08 AM, bzs@theworld.com wrote:

...

I'll assert this is a problem in ICANN's governance structure.

Let's not just argue for the sake of arguing. There might be a very real problem here.

I think it is a real problem. Let's do a mind experiment. In that experiment let us hypothesize that every single user of the internet wants to make a change to ICANN. Every single user of the internet, that is, except those who sit in one of ICANN's other "stakeholder" categories, such as a registry owner or standards body or government etc.

Could that vast majority of internet users require that ICANN change?

No they could not. ICANN has created too much insulation and empowered the very few to block the will of the overwhelming majority.

ICANN is far too much of a money pump into the pockets of certain "stakeholder" interests - For instance registries get more than a $Billion a year in fiat, never audited, never questioned registry fees out of the pockets of internet users. Those registry "stakeholders" will make sure that ICANN never gives enough power to those who pay into that river of money to raise questions about whether that river is justified.

--karl--

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Well, it didn't happen. And by the way, no, the theory is flawed, the atomic unit is not the individual, not for all processes, not for all purposes, not in all societies, not for all interactions. There's a few dozen if not more thousands of years of human history that speaks to the effect of various levels of aggregation, much of which is called "politics." When you act as an individual for individual or collective-benefit interests you have to leave aside your interests as a business. If they are overwhelming you have to recuse yourself. If you are a policy-making government official you don't have freedom enough to represent anyone else (not even yourself, outside say your preferences in sports), so you declare that and recuse yourself or let yourself be accompanied to the door. Also, the Lemley and Froomkin paper on the US Government's delegation of functions to ICANN suggested that the evolution should be towards either full governmental control or unfettered markets. Neither happened. The "democratic deficit" of multistakeholder governance is a known problem, for the Internet and elsewhere, and is being managed. It is tougher to manage when participants refuse to discolose their interests or believe they alone can determine whether they themselves are in a conflict of interest situation, but in a large enough community even that is manageable. Fast forward, not to the present debate but to twenty years ago, the question is not why ICANN would choose to call itself a regulator, but why individuals, ISPs (foundational or more recent), consultancies, NGOs (the honest ones which are many, the ones covering up for other interests, hmmm), and anyone else would choose that. Still in the twenty-years-ago level, antitrust: solved. ICANN's architecture makes it harder for a single set of interests to collude and exert undue market power (and boy do they try hard, on the backs of many naive souls); and it has been tested by some pretty aggressive litigation. Anything else need a rehash, or are there some "today" issues to spend time and energy on? Alejandro Pisanty On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:

Roberto: As you know I've been in opposition to the "stakeholder" model of governance since before ICANN was created. And as many foresaw way back then, certain "stakeholder" groups have become rather more powerful than others to the degree that one can fairly argue that ICANN is a regulatory/governance body that has been captured by those who it purports to regulate.

Let us not forget that when ICANN was created promises were made that a majority of the seats on the board of directors would be chosen by the public. That promise remains unfulfilled. The community of internet users ought to have a loud and commanding voice in ICANN yet the stakeholder model has left the community of internet users with little more than an easily ignored whisper.

One of the things that amuses me, or concerns me, is that stakeholder thinking tend to pre-conceive what a given person or thing might be interested in - in other words, it ordains, without ever consulting the person involved, where a person's "stake" lays. That kind of top-down-imposition is, well, not very bottom-up.

Let's look at my own case. Which "stakeholder" pigeon hole box should I be stuffed into? Or, should I be allowed to operated as several "stakeholders" and thus (unfairly) multiply my voice?

- I am an individual

- I own for profit business corporations (both as a founder or as a shareholder.)

- I am a member of public-interest groups.

- I live in a country (and citizen of two.)

- I and my corporations register domain names.

- I and my corporations have trademarks, copyrights, patents and other intellectual property.

- I and my corporations have public IP address space (allocated from Jon Postel, not by the RIRs.)

- I am an attorney who is involved in intellectual property matters.

- I have written full internet standards that continue wide use on a daily basis.

- I have property (partial ownership) interests in domain name registries and registrars of ICANN granted TLDs.

I am hardly unique in this way. Every person is a bundle of interests that are often at odds with one another. It ought to be up to each individual to reconcile these interests, to formulate a vote based on a self-made evaluation of which personal interest is more important and ought to prevail. Stakeholderism deprives people of the right to reconcile their interests; stakeholderism imposes an externally pre-made decision onto that person about what are that person's most important concerns.

Stuffing me into one stakeholder box or another the organization (or whoever is creating that taxonomy) is a Procrustean act that arbitrarily pre-decides which of my interests best express my views.

Stakeholderism, like Procrustes, chops off our arms and stretches our legs in order to make each of us fit onto whatever iron bed the organization feels is most appropriate.

(For those of you who wonder about "Procrustean" - here's the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes )

I suggest that the atomic unit of interest is the individual human being. And as a consequence, the only thing that should have a countable vote in matters of internet governance are individual human beings. Anything else, corporations, domain name owners, intellectual property warriors, etc ought to have no voting authority - but will, of course, retain the power to articulate arguments to try to convince individual people to use their vote in certain ways.

--karl--

On 7/16/18 8:28 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

It is of course a risk that the multi-stakeholder model be tilted towards the interests of one part of the stakeholders - this is why, incidentally, Fadi was talking about *global* *equal* multi-stakeholder (“GEMS") model. That there is a potential corruption of the model is no good reason for rejecting it, in particular in lack of a better system. So I would argue that the way to go is to make sure that the voice of the different stakeholders compose with the requirement of being “global” (meaning all have a chance to get to the table) and “equal” (meaning all have the same voice). In practice, civil society, because of the inherent limitations about financial power, should be subsidised to participate, and civil society itself has to make sure that it avoids infiltration of lobbyists among its rank and file. Cheers, R

On 16.07.2018, at 00:05, bzs@theworld.com wrote:

On July 16, 2018 at 01:48 6.Internet@gmail.com(Sivasubramanian M) wrote:

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 12:16 AM <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:

Multistakeholderism is open to all -- like the Ritz Hotel.

( Understand that it is an anology that isn't perfect). Going by this anology, it merely requires a simple, very simple fix: Reserve a third of the hotel by unconditional funding to the stakeholder group that can't afford it, and to anyone relatively less privileges even from within even the wealthier stakeholder groups. Then we will find the elusive balance.

I was thinking of how it exists, specifically ICANN, rather than some hypothetical implementation.

The problem is that there is no tie-in (GAC possibly excepted but they are advisory) between those who participate and those who are affected by the various policy development processes.

Yes in theory anyone, even the poorest internet user, could simply buy themselves plane tickets and hotel rooms etc and participate in the meetings.

Given the actual way it's organized one would likely have to do that three times per year for a few years to rise to any level of participation beyond open mikes.

But it's open to anyone! Much like the Ritz Hotel.

It's no accident that multistakeholderism has been referred to as system which is "of, by, and for the lobbyists"*.

In a nutshell get rid of anything remotely resembling popularly elected voting members (even indirectly) and just let the big registries, registrars, and others with financial interests be the stakeholders and do all the policy development and approval.

Yes one can identify the occasional exception to that.

* That point was essentially on the wikipedia page for multistakeholderism under "Criticisms" but disappeared about a year or so ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance_ model&diff=768793583&oldid=750897618

Criticism of multistakeholderism comes from Paul R. Lehto, J.D.{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}}, who fears that in multistakeholderism, those who would be lobbyists become legislators, and nobody else has a vote. Lehto states that "In a democracy, it is a scandal when lobbyists have so much influence that they write the drafts of laws. But in multistakeholder situations they take that scandal to a whole new level: those who would be lobbyists in a democracy (corporations, experts, civil society) become the legislators themselves, and dispense with all public elections and not only write the laws but pass them, enforce them, and in some cases even set up courts of arbitration that are usually conditioned on waiving the right to go to the court system set up by democracies. A vote is just a minimum requirement of justice. Without a vote, law is just force inflicted by the wealthy and powerful. Multistakeholderism is a coup d’etat against democracy by those who would merely be lobbyists in a democratic system."{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}} -- -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com <http://www.theworld.com/> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing listAt-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Thanks for the the compliment. Here's a pointer to that note: https://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/igf-democracy-in-internet-governance.pdf However, among all of the things that I've written about internet governance I believe that the following is the most important: First Law of the Internet https://www.cavebear.com/old_cbblog/000059.html + Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that   is privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental.    - The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those      who wish to prevent the private use.        - Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing          evidence of public detriment.    - The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as      to justify the suppression of the private activity.             --karl-- On 7/14/18 7:50 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:

So happy to see you in this conversation Karl.

For those who don't know Karl Auerbach, my first deep dive into the ICANN phenomenon found me reading Karl Auerbach and Michael Froomkin. Over the years since 2007, I've had several conversations with Karl on numerous topics. Those interactions have always been illuminating and thought-provoking.

For those of you who might wish to deepen your understanding of the ICANN phenomenon, I would also recommend Auerbach's paper "Stakeholderism - The Wrong Road for Internet Governance".

-Carlton

============================== /Carlton A Samuels/ /Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/ =============================

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 9:51 PM Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com <mailto:karl@cavebear.com>> wrote:

Carlton, you are as sane and clear eyed as you have always been.  Yes, ICANN quacks like a regulatory body and walks like a regulatory body.

(Which I guess means that ICANN is a duck?)

I agree with you that ICANN regulates - it controls, allocates, revokes, and levies fees.  It also shares some other attributes with regulatory bodies: It is effectively unavoidable and its decisions have ripples that go far beyond those whose actions are directly shaped by the body.

As Even L. pointed out ICANN may have legal reasons to try to fend away the word "regulator".  That's not surprising, but that kind of wordplay is approaching an exercise of Orwellian Newspeak.  And it's nothing new to ICANN: back in year 2000 they tried to label a thing that was clearly an "election" as something else called a "selection" in an attempt to evade California laws regarding the obligations of non-profit/public benefit corporations.

One has to wonder why are intelligent people so afraid to use a description that so clearly applies?

Well, perhaps it is because there is fear of that word reviving a long unanswered question.

As you mention, ICANN shapes internet domain name policies and economics, and even charges "fees" that everyone would agree would be called "taxes" if levied by a governmental body.

A better way to put this is to say that ICANN restrains some trade and encourages other trade.  I used that former phrase because it tends to raise the question of "what provides ICANN with immunity from anti-trust laws"?

This paper from year 2003 still remains largely unanswered: http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann-antitrust.pdf <http://osaka.law.miami.edu/%7Efroomkin/articles/icann-antitrust.pdf>

By-the-way, with regard to the vistaprint TLD and the discussion of ICANN application fees - I went through the round a few years ago and did the better part of 100 applications, with each being an almost identical application with only a couple of pages of different marketing info.  Yet we got hit with the full $185,000 charge for each one of those even though the review for each was essentially identical.  It made me feel that as between ICANN and a highway robber saying "stand and deliver" that the latter was less blameworthy.

        --karl--

On 07/13/2018 05:44 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: > It really isn't a personal opinion; the facts are undeniable by virtue > of the admitted regulatory signs. > > It is in ICANN's power to gift a resource, set the requirements by which > one can be gifted, set the rules for use of resource, charge and punish > violations of the rules as appropriate and exact a fee for gifting that > resource.  Anywhere else in Christendom and the known sensate world, > those activities are the very definition of a regulator. > > ICANN has managed to convince itself and would wish to make > accommodating idiots of the rest of us because it is politically > difficult to do otherwise. I get the politics of it. But to ask me to > deny the evidence of my two lying eyes and what is plainly the case in > reason and judgment is a bridge too far. The Christian bible has a line > in it "in Christ all things are possible". I would add a caution to that > declaration:  Save and except to take me for an idiot. > > -Carlton > > ============================== > /Carlton A Samuels/ > /Mobile: 876-818-1799 > Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/ > ============================= > > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 4:13 PM Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com <mailto:kankaili@gmail.com> > <mailto:kankaili@gmail.com <mailto:kankaili@gmail.com>>> wrote: > >     Indeed Goran has said "ICANN is not a regulator" many times.  I have >     heard him saying that myself.  However, this is something I disagree >     with him. > >     Again, in my personal opinion, as long as the positioning of ICANN >     stays blurry as it is now, the confusion will only accumulate until >     it creats a crisis. > >     Kaili > > > >     ----- Original Message ----- >     From: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com <mailto:julf@julf.com> <mailto:julf@julf.com <mailto:julf@julf.com>>> >     To: <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >     <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>> >     Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 8:33 PM >     Subject: Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista > > >      > On 12-07-18 19:56, Kan Kaili wrote: >      >> In my opinion, ICANN should play the role of a regulator. >      > >      > Our esteemed CEO, Göran Marby, has a number of phrases he repeats >      > fairly often. "ICANN is not a regulator" is one of them. >      > >      > Julf >      > >      > _______________________________________________ >      > At-Large mailing list >      > At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >     <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> >      > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large >      > >      > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >     _______________________________________________ >     At-Large mailing list > At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >     <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > >     At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >

Hello Julf, the previous mantra was <<ICANN is not a content regulator> The question with the new CEO is, if he includes now "privacy" as well cheers --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-07-13 14:33, Johan Helsingius escribió:

On 12-07-18 19:56, Kan Kaili wrote:

...

In my opinion, ICANN should play the role of a regulator.

Our esteemed CEO, Göran Marby, has a number of phrases he repeats fairly often. "ICANN is not a regulator" is one of them.

Julf

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Dear Olivier Please see inline: On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 8:21 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:

Dear Christian,

On 12/07/2018 11:40, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:

Worth pointing out this note is proposing a tax basis for DNS not a cost recovery mechanism. Who gets this tax revenue? Who gets to set it? ICANN does not have the credentials.

IMHO the "cost recovery basis" is a red herring for the simple reason that it is impossible to calculate what a TLD will really cost ICANN in the long run. Is it just the cost of processing the application, or is it the cost of fixing problems related to that TLD such as the need to have more ICANN compliance staff for more TLDs with a higher than normal amount of misuse of domains under that TLD?

The ICANN model is already a tax revenue model where ICANN taxes every domain sold and Registries, Registrars and their agenda collect that money on behalf of ICANN pretty much like VAT.

It need not be called a tax revenue model, but by a term such as "DNS fees" payable for every domain, required to maintain the DNS as global, stable, secure and fair. It seems uniformly subsidized at present level for the benefit of the global Internet user at ​18 cents per domain through the Registrar after 25 cents per domain indirectly collected from gTLD registries, but not from all Registries. This could be more, much more, after providing for even zero fees or/and lower fees (10 cents or so) for the first 10,000 names by a new Registry / Registrar, some exceptionally limited Community TLDs, to actually become a dollar as total direct and indirect Registrant fee to ICANN. Also, what happens when someone pays US $ 13 million or an unknown sum in an unspoken of transaction? A dollar to ICANN? Could be a million as premium fee. Quite a moot point, could be voluntary for Registries. The rationale arises from considering, in concept, not as much by legal assertion, all names as "owned" by All Users with ICANN as the Trustee, and the Registries / Registrars as lessors of the name for a year, two, ten or more, with fair and routine consideration by ICANN in accordance with business conventions for routine extensions to continue operations in their respective space, and for the Registrant similar considerations to extend the registrations. ICANN's revenues are disproportionately low which constrains it's mission unacknowledged. Sivasubramanian M

What about setting higher application fees for brand TLDs?

Corporations, especially the ones who desire their own TLDs, spend hundreds of million to build up their brands, and some brands spend in billions on advertising. The current gTLD application fee has been arrived so as to make the process approachable by applicants across the world, by small applicants and individuals. Brands are on the top end of this spectrum. Yes, there could be a different fee structure for brands of such global scope that they prefer to have that brand name as global gTLD. I gather that the place to discuss this is the subsequent procedures PDP,

if that has not already been discussed. Kindest regards,

Olivier _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

-- Sivasubramanian M Please send all replies to 6.Internet@gmail.com

Dear Christian, thanks for your comment. Please see my comment inline: On 13/07/2018 09:56, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:

What ICANN should not do is sell more tld's in order to subsidise fixing those already available.

With currently falling revenues and rising costs due to inflation, ICANN is under pressure to create more revenue streams and a quick fix is to go for another new gTLD round. As for "fixing" TLDs that are already available, ICANN not being a regulator, it is argued that it is not in its mandate to fix anything, except if the new gTLDs endanger the actual technical stability of the DNS, which we've seen is not the case. Kindest regards, Olivier

Fyi: Filter out LACRALO since am not a member Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, 08:57 Christian de Larrinaga, <cdel@firsthand.net> wrote:

There should be no branding in the DNS - none. It is not technically capable as it stands of representing brands. Branding could be supported and integrated with the DNS. But the domain name itself is not the mechanism to use.

SO: +1

We've had over two decades of noise around IPRs in the DNS domain names. None of the solutions to this are anything more than band aids to try to stop a bit of bleeding. The emergence of brand TLDs has created opportunities to cut an artery or two. But the idea you cure somebody by putting up the price of the surgery does not look like a good idea for the patient. It looks self serving for the surgeon.

Over the longer term as I said there are better ways to architect brand services than putting up the price to make more band aids.

The short term problem is ICANN has misstepped by pushing for brand TLDs and accumulated a huge amount of money in the process. If it finds out that it needs to spend some or all of that to fix its mess then that is not an excuse for passing the buck on to others.

SO: +1~ I guess it's one of the reason why a rushed next round could emphasis the rigmarole.

What ICANN should not do is sell more tld's in order to subsidise fixing those already available. At the end of the day the brands who bought into and own these domains are responsible for the good conduct and service to their users. They bought into it and it is to them that their users should and can seek redress if those brands don't stand up to the contract they made. ICANN no doubt has some responsibility and possibly some potential liability but it is a private sector body and has to live and die as such.

SO: Once again, I agree. Regards

best

Christian

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:

...

Dear Christian,

On 12/07/2018 11:40, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:

...

Worth pointing out this note is proposing a tax basis for DNS not a cost recovery mechanism. Who gets this tax revenue? Who gets to set it? ICANN does not have the credentials.

IMHO the "cost recovery basis" is a red herring for the simple reason that it is impossible to calculate what a TLD will really cost ICANN in the long run. Is it just the cost of processing the application, or is it the cost of fixing problems related to that TLD such as the need to have more ICANN compliance staff for more TLDs with a higher than normal amount of misuse of domains under that TLD?

The ICANN model is already a tax revenue model where ICANN taxes every domain sold and Registries, Registrars and their agenda collect that money on behalf of ICANN pretty much like VAT.

What about setting higher application fees for brand TLDs? I gather that the place to discuss this is the subsequent procedures PDP, if that has not already been discussed. Kindest regards,

Olivier

-- Christian de Larrinaga @ FirstHand ------------------------- +44 7989 386778 cdel@firsthand.net

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

My two cents: The failure if new gTLDs is only a concern to ICANN and at large to the extent that it negatively impacts the security and stability (S&S) of the internet. A minority of end users are interested in acquiring a new gTLD and for them, we want to make the process simple and straightforward while not endangering S&S. I've seen no evidence to date that new gTLD usage is approaching that of legacy gTLDs or ccTLDs nor evidence that this is likely to change. New gTLDs are the narrow tip of the TLD long tail distribution. End user trust/habit will likely continue to preference more well established (older) TLDs rather than new ones. Their likely failure and aggregation if anything should be anticipated. If anything, ICANN should have recourse to reclaim new gTLDs that are acquired but lie fallow and go unused (owner of new gTLD fails to execute their business plan) and make them available to others. ICANN should discourage new gTLD squatting. The failure of new gTLDs for business reasons is frankly not ICANN's or at large's concern. In this sense ICANN needn't gave rounds for new gTLDs but rather have an ongoing process that enables new gTLD granting/creation in an ongoing basis along with evaluation if those granted to determine their utilization. I'd throw open the doors with the admonition that new gTLDs aren't guaranteed to succeed.

Agree with both John and Christopher. The reports on Competition, Consumer choice and Trust was supposed to give us a good picture on those aspects of the outcomes of the new gTLD program and, so some extend, there are some answers, but there are also a lot of blanks.  And yes, it would be good to see a final analysis of the new gTLDs. But then ALAC has, for some time, said we would like to see final results of the first round before anything more happens..... Holly ----- Original Message ----- From: "mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW" To:"At-Large Worldwide" , "John Laprise" Cc: Sent:Sat, 14 Jul 2018 20:59:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject:Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista Dear John: Thankyou. In so far as your feelings about the new gTLDs mirror those of others, I agree. However, as a 'facts-based' economist I would really like to see a statistical report from ICANN about the results, business and otherwise, of the 2012 programme.  It is not reassuring that GNSO is going so far down the road towards the 'next round' in the absence of a serious appraisal of the results of the previous round. 

 I've seen no evidence to date that new gTLD usage is approaching that of legacy gTLDs or ccTLDs nor evidence that this is likely to change.

Well, depending on your definition of the 'legacy', with one major exception. Best regards cw@christopherwilkinson.eu El 14 de julio de 2018 a las 16:08 John Laprise escribió: My two cents: The failure if new gTLDs is only a concern to ICANN and at large to the extent that it negatively impacts the security and stability (S&S) of the internet. A minority of end users are interested in acquiring a new gTLD and for them, we want to make the process simple and straightforward while not endangering S&S.  I've seen no evidence to date that new gTLD usage is approaching that of legacy gTLDs or ccTLDs nor evidence that this is likely to change. New gTLDs are the narrow tip of the TLD long tail distribution. End user trust/habit will likely continue to preference more well established (older) TLDs rather than new ones. Their likely failure and aggregation if anything should be anticipated. If anything, ICANN should have recourse to reclaim new gTLDs that are acquired but lie fallow and go unused (owner of new gTLD fails to execute their business plan) and make them available to others. ICANN should discourage new gTLD squatting.  The failure of new gTLDs for business reasons is frankly not ICANN's or at large's concern. In this sense ICANN needn't gave rounds for new gTLDs but rather have an ongoing process that enables new gTLD granting/creation in an ongoing basis along with evaluation if those granted to determine their utilization. I'd throw open the doors with the admonition that new gTLDs aren't guaranteed to succeed._______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Hi, Holly, In addition, as CCT-RT's initial report asked to collect more data, the Board's comment reminded the team to avoid expensive data collecting. As I remember, that was the Board's only formal reply to CCT-RT's initial report. This is on top of objections from contracted parties citing business confidentiality. Thus, collecting much more data for a more thorough analysis would not seem to be easy, at least for the time being. Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org ; h.raiche@internode.on.net ; mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW ; At-Large Worldwide ; John Laprise Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista Dear Holly, The only data the CCT RT found at it's inception, was the first round of a (very expensive) qualitative survey. And even that one had to be adapted for the wonderful round. In fact, many initial recommensations of the CCT RT were to ask for reasonable quantitative market data series. Very much aligned with the desire to make ICANN a data driven organization. We all are on the sidelines expecting good hard market (wholesale and retail) data and the output of so many other efforts and new job descriptions that continue to accumulate. Best On July 15, 2018 2:35:24 PM GMT+02:00, h.raiche@internode.on.net wrote: Agree with both John and Christopher. The reports on Competition, Consumer choice and Trust was supposed to give us a good picture on those aspects of the outcomes of the new gTLD program and, so some extend, there are some answers, but there are also a lot of blanks. And yes, it would be good to see a final analysis of the new gTLDs. But then ALAC has, for some time, said we would like to see final results of the first round before anything more happens..... Holly ----- Original Message ----- From: "mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW" <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "John Laprise" <jlaprise@gmail.com> Cc: Sent: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 20:59:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista Dear John: Thankyou. In so far as your feelings about the new gTLDs mirror those of others, I agree. However, as a 'facts-based' economist I would really like to see a statistical report from ICANN about the results, business and otherwise, of the 2012 programme. It is not reassuring that GNSO is going so far down the road towards the 'next round' in the absence of a serious appraisal of the results of the previous round. > I've seen no evidence to date that new gTLD usage is approaching that of legacy gTLDs or ccTLDs nor evidence that this is likely to change. Well, depending on your definition of the 'legacy', with one major exception. Best regards cw@christopherwilkinson.eu El 14 de julio de 2018 a las 16:08 John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> escribió: My two cents: The failure if new gTLDs is only a concern to ICANN and at large to the extent that it negatively impacts the security and stability (S&S) of the internet. A minority of end users are interested in acquiring a new gTLD and for them, we want to make the process simple and straightforward while not endangering S&S. I've seen no evidence to date that new gTLD usage is approaching that of legacy gTLDs or ccTLDs nor evidence that this is likely to change. New gTLDs are the narrow tip of the TLD long tail distribution. End user trust/habit will likely continue to preference more well established (older) TLDs rather than new ones. Their likely failure and aggregation if anything should be anticipated. If anything, ICANN should have recourse to reclaim new gTLDs that are acquired but lie fallow and go unused (owner of new gTLD fails to execute their business plan) and make them available to others. ICANN should discourage new gTLD squatting. The failure of new gTLDs for business reasons is frankly not ICANN's or at large's concern. In this sense ICANN needn't gave rounds for new gTLDs but rather have an ongoing process that enables new gTLD granting/creation in an ongoing basis along with evaluation if those granted to determine their utilization. I'd throw open the doors with the admonition that new gTLDs aren't guaranteed to succeed. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

I don’t want to open a big can of worms, but there are substantial differences between applications. Some are in view of having a financial return, some for the promotion of a brand, some for the support of a community, some just to widen the access to the internet for people using different languages and scripts…. I don’t think that the current “one size fits all” approach of $185K+$25K/year is appropriate, but I also think that changing the figures but keeping the approach will be of any help for the community as a whole. R. PS: I keep LACRALO in cc, but my message is likely to be rejected because I am not a member thereof

On 12.07.2018, at 05:49, bzs@theworld.com wrote:

A major problem with nTLDs, including (and particularly) brand nTLDS, is ICANN should have charged, and should going forward, millions for them, not $185K+$25K/year.

And if any were deserving but not financially capable they could be handled on a case by case basis. It's not like it's difficult to give something away so let's not bog ourselves down in that.

I think $2.5M for a new gTLD and $5M for a brand TLD sounds pretty reasonable, and $100K/$250K/year, maybe more.

To quote a recent note here it's not much for a Fortune 500 company.

-- -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

To: Barry Shein I fully support the idea of differentiate pricing for .brands! I even support a separate window-process for applications, evaluations and delegation of .brands, contracted out to WIPO to deal with!!!!!! And ICANN should just get a cut of of that. It owuld allow us to focus on the free open internet and the public interest. --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-07-12 05:49, bzs@theworld.com escribió:

A major problem with nTLDs, including (and particularly) brand nTLDS, is ICANN should have charged, and should going forward, millions for them, not $185K+$25K/year.

And if any were deserving but not financially capable they could be handled on a case by case basis. It's not like it's difficult to give something away so let's not bog ourselves down in that.

I think $2.5M for a new gTLD and $5M for a brand TLD sounds pretty reasonable, and $100K/$250K/year, maybe more.

To quote a recent note here it's not much for a Fortune 500 company.

-- -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

That’s a tiny amount of money for a Fortune 500 etc -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Wednesday 11 July 2018 at 15:27 To: Olivier Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com>, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] [At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista Over and above anything else, there is the $25k annual registry fee plus whatever their registry operator is charging them. Alan At 11/07/2018 09:42 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote: Dear Michele, I wonder why they are dropping it. Does it cost them more in the long run, than using several composed domains? Kindest regards, Olivier On 11/07/2018 10:27, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: Carlton It’s a .brand – zero “normal” registrants or users will be impacted If it was a TLD with actual registrations then it would be a totally different matter, but it isn’t. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com><mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday 10 July 2018 at 21:10 To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org"<mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG? Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects. On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing! https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai... -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en

Corporate logic can be strange, especially in relations to money and savings. We had issue with expiry of samsung.rs that someone registered later and redirected to www.apple.com. It turned out that Samsung corporate has decided to use samsung.com/rs style and to let all cc domains expire, presumably to save the costs. I don’t believe it made up for much of the then problem with exploding S7 Note. Danko From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 4:44 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>; At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista Yes, that's what I wondered. I mean, having gone through the motions and all the work to apply, it seems strange to let go of such a mark, except if the crowded trademark space around "vista" was more a liability than an asset. https://bit.ly/2LciD0g Kindest regards, Olivier On 11/07/2018 16:28, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: That’s a tiny amount of money for a Fortune 500 etc -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Alan Greenberg <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Wednesday 11 July 2018 at 15:27 To: Olivier Crepin-Leblond <mailto:ocl@gih.com> <ocl@gih.com>, Michele Neylon <mailto:michele@blacknight.com> <michele@blacknight.com>, Carlton Samuels <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>, At-Large Worldwide <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] [At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista Over and above anything else, there is the $25k annual registry fee plus whatever their registry operator is charging them. Alan At 11/07/2018 09:42 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote: Dear Michele, I wonder why they are dropping it. Does it cost them more in the long run, than using several composed domains? Kindest regards, Olivier On 11/07/2018 10:27, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: Carlton It’s a .brand – zero “normal” registrants or users will be impacted If it was a TLD with actual registrations then it would be a totally different matter, but it isn’t. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: At-Large <mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday 10 July 2018 at 21:10 To: At-Large Worldwide <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG? Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects. On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing! https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai... -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

I wonder whether there is a wider conversation here to be had about many of the economic premises and justifications behind new gTLDs... On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 10:48 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

Yes. Was just answering Olivier's question.

Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On July 11, 2018 10:28:38 AM EDT, Michele Neylon - Blacknight < michele@blacknight.com> wrote:

...

That’s a tiny amount of money for a Fortune 500 etc

--

Mr Michele Neylon

Blacknight Solutions

Hosting, Colocation & Domains

https://www.blacknight.com/

http://blacknight.blog/

Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072

Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090

Personal blog: https://michele.blog/

Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/

-------------------------------

Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty

Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845

*From: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Date: *Wednesday 11 July 2018 at 15:27 *To: *Olivier Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, Michele Neylon < michele@blacknight.com>, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, " lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" < lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [lac-discuss-en] [At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista

Over and above anything else, there is the $25k annual registry fee plus whatever their registry operator is charging them.

Alan

At 11/07/2018 09:42 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:

Dear Michele,

I wonder why they are dropping it. Does it cost them more in the long run, than using several composed domains? Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 11/07/2018 10:27, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:

Carlton

It’s a .brand – zero “normal†registrants or users will be impacted

If it was a TLD with actual registrations then it would be a totally different matter, but it isn’t.

Regards

Michele

-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845

*From: *At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday 10 July 2018 at 21:10 *To: *At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject: *[At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista

Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG?

Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects.

On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing!

https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai...

-Carlton

============================== *Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

_______________________________________________

lac-discuss-en mailing list

<lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>

lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org

<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en>

https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en

_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en

_______________________________________________

At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

I agree Alan, an important part of the homework Carlton gave us, is to analyze the cash flow impact on ICANN finances of ¨wilting¨ TLDs I like this definition, and as an ESL person really appreciate Joly´s prose a nice weekend to all! --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-07-11 16:23, Alan Greenberg escribió:

Over and above anything else, there is the $25k annual registry fee plus whatever their registry operator is charging them.

Alan

At 11/07/2018 09:42 AM, Olivier MJ CrÃ(c)pin-Leblond wrote:

Dear Michele,

I wonder why they are dropping it. Does it cost them more in the long run, than using several composed domains? Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 11/07/2018 10:27, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: Carlton

ItâEUR(tm)s a .brand - zero âEURœnormalâEUR registrants or users will be impacted

If it was a TLD with actual registrations then it would be a totally different matter, but it isnâEUR(tm)t.

Regards

Michele

-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ [1] Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845

FROM: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> DATE: Tuesday 10 July 2018 at 21:10 TO: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> SUBJECT: [At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista

Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG?

Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects.

On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing!

https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai... [2]

-Carlton

============================== _Carlton A Samuels_ Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================

_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list

lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org

https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en

_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en [3]

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Links: ------ [1] http://blacknight.blog/ [2] https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai... [3] https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en

Thanks Michele! Even if it has zero registrations, ICANN made a nice chunk of income out of it. Should they get their money back? Cheers --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-07-11 10:27, Michele Neylon - Blacknight escribió:

Carlton

It's a .brand - zero "normal" registrants or users will be impacted

If it was a TLD with actual registrations then it would be a totally different matter, but it isn't.

Regards

Michele

--

Mr Michele Neylon

Blacknight Solutions

Hosting, Colocation & Domains

https://www.blacknight.com/

http://blacknight.blog/

Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072

Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090

Personal blog: https://michele.blog/

Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/

-------------------------------

Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty

Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845

FROM: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> DATE: Tuesday 10 July 2018 at 21:10 TO: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> SUBJECT: [At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista

Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG?

Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects.

On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing!

https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai...

-Carlton

============================== _Carlton A Samuels_ Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Dear Seun, I strongly disagree with your "winner takes all" evaluation. My basic premise was that ICANN was a non-for-porfit public interst dreiven organzation. Not a Pyramid business. But I'm here to learn. --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-07-14 12:53, Seun Ojedeji escribió:

Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Sat, 14 Jul 2018, 09:12 Carlos Raul Gutierrez, <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> wrote:

...

Thanks Michele!

Even if it has zero registrations, ICANN made a nice chunk of income out of it. Should they get their money back?

SO: Did they not make a business decision, afterall they were not forced to apply. However wrong it might be, it was their choice and their loss, hence a refund should be moot.

Cheers!

Cheers

--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA

El 2018-07-11 10:27, Michele Neylon - Blacknight escribió:

Carlton

It's a .brand - zero "normal" registrants or users will be impacted

If it was a TLD with actual registrations then it would be a totally different matter, but it isn't.

Regards

Michele

--

Mr Michele Neylon

Blacknight Solutions

Hosting, Colocation & Domains

https://www.blacknight.com/

http://blacknight.blog/

Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072

Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090

Personal blog: https://michele.blog/

Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/

-------------------------------

Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty

Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845

FROM: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> DATE: Tuesday 10 July 2018 at 21:10 TO: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> SUBJECT: [At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista

Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG?

Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects.

On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing!

https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai...

-Carlton

============================== _Carlton A Samuels_ Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Interesting, Carlos. That point of view is quite relevant to WT5, and the wider related discussion regarding “Sponsored” gTLDs & “Community Applications”. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua

On Jul 14, 2018, at 4:10 AM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> wrote:

Dear Carlton,

I support your suggestion of following up on the (market) success, or lack of it, of individual new gTLDs.

But to make it effective, my suggestion has always been to do it within the categories segment of the Subsequent Procedures PDP.

I see a great difference between a single firm, which sees no economic sense in spending defensive or marketing money on their own ¨Brand¨ TLD on the one side, and a very small country and/or geographic sub-unit (particular if bound by some common cultural traits) that wants to develop its internet presence, even if they will have to subsidize it TLD, by hosting it in a public entity (like fundacion .cat). In the second case I would worry much more, if the TLD dies or gets acquired for other purposes

Wish you a nice weekend

--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA

El 2018-07-10 22:09, Carlton Samuels escribió:

...

Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG?

Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects.

On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing!

https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai...

-Carlton

============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

---

At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Carlos, Agree that asymmetrical policies and conditions (I avoid using the word regulation on purpose) should be minimized as much as possible, and we should strive to even abolish them. There are few things more defeating to the human spirit (including the spirit of applicants) than arbitrary, capricious or unpredictable results for like situations. In WT5 we have had some good discussion on principles like “Increasing predictability for all parties” as well as “simplicity– simple to understand, follow, and implement policies and procedures”, concepts that are quite akin to “legality” and the “rule of law” in wider discussions. It will be a triumph for the whole Community if we end up with new gTLD policies that are non-contradictory, standardized, predictable, easy to find and understand, and of course are legitimized by a strong consensus. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua

On Jul 14, 2018, at 10:05 AM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> wrote:

Thanks for chiming in Javier!

The biggest lesson I carry from my work with Carlton in the CCT-RT is that while the "one-size-fist-all" framework for application and evaluation is quite use full and profitable for $ 185k per application, all wins get more than destroyed in the asymetric conditions for delegation.

A purely economic appraisal as Carlton suggests, is poisonous to the people that still believe in the interest of small cultural, linguistic and sub-regional communities that still beg for a reasonable access to the DNS.

I wish you a very nice Sunday

--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA

El 2018-07-14 14:10, Javier Rua escribió:

...

Interesting, Carlos. That point of view is quite relevant to WT5, and the wider related discussion regarding "Sponsored" gTLDs & "Community Applications".

Javier Rúa-Jovet

+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua

...

On Jul 14, 2018, at 4:10 AM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> wrote:

Dear Carlton,

I support your suggestion of following up on the (market) success, or lack of it, of individual new gTLDs.

But to make it effective, my suggestion has always been to do it within the categories segment of the Subsequent Procedures PDP.

I see a great difference between a single firm, which sees no economic sense in spending defensive or marketing money on their own ¨Brand¨ TLD on the one side, and a very small country and/or geographic sub-unit (particular if bound by some common cultural traits) that wants to develop its internet presence, even if they will have to subsidize it TLD, by hosting it in a public entity (like fundacion .cat). In the second case I would worry much more, if the TLD dies or gets acquired for other purposes

Wish you a nice weekend

--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA

El 2018-07-10 22:09, Carlton Samuels escribió:

Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG?

Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects.

On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing!

https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai...

-Carlton

============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org