May 2017 - comments-net-renewal-20apr17@icann.org

Re: [Comments-net-renewal-20apr17] Posted on behalf of John Carr, UK Children's Charities Coalition on Internet Safety and The European NGO Alliance for Child Safety Online re: .Net Registry Agreement
by Greg Shatan May 31, 2017

May 31, 2017

I filed comments yesterday and they are not showing up. Can you please let me know when this will be rectified? Thanks! Greg Shatan President, IPC

1 0

[Comments-net-renewal-20apr17] NCSG comments
by Rafik Dammak May 31, 2017

May 31, 2017

Hi, I am submitting this comment (attached) on behalf of NCSG as NCSG Policy Committee Chair. Thanks. Best Regards, Rafik

1 0

[Comments-net-renewal-20apr17] IPC Comment on the Proposed Renewal of the .NET Registry Agreement
by Greg Shatan May 31, 2017

May 31, 2017

The Intellectual Property Constituency appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the Proposed Renewal of the .NET Registry Agreement. Respectfully Submitted, Gregory S. Shatan President, IPC

1 0

[Comments-net-renewal-20apr17] Posted on behalf of John Carr, UK Children's Charities Coalition on Internet Safety and The European NGO Alliance for Child Safety Online re: .Net Registry Agreement
by Karla Hakansson May 30, 2017

May 30, 2017

From: John Carr [mailto:john@johncarr.eu] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2017 4:07 PM To: Karla Hakansson <karla.hakansson(a)icann.org> Cc: Fabien Betremieux <fabien.betremieux(a)icann.org>; Cathrin.BAUER-BULST(a)ec.europa.eu Subject: [Ext] .Net Registry Agreement Dear Karla Hakansson, I have left this rather late and I am travelling tomorrow. I do not want to miss the deadline so could you please register the following comment for me in respect of the consultation on the .NetRegistary Agreement: In April, 2017, the Internet Watch Foundation, the UK's hotline for dealing with reports of child abuse images (child pornography) found on web sites, showed that in 2016 20% of all the reports it received came from sites within the .net domain. In previous years similar high proportions of such images were also found wihtin the .net domain. This shows the problem is chronic and systemic. Verisign should not be awarded or allowed to hold the .net Registry Agreement until such time as they produce a convincing plan to address and put right this scandalous state of affairs. Regards John Carr For and on bedhalf of the (UK) Children's Charities' Coalition on Internet Safety And The European NGO Alliance for Child Safety Online

1 0

[Comments-net-renewal-20apr17] Ratification Pending: ALAC Statement on the Proposed Renewal of .NET Registry Agreement
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 30, 2017

May 30, 2017

Dear All, Please be so kind to find attached the ALAC Statement on the Proposed Renewal of .NET Registry Agreement. In the interest of time, the ALAC Chair requested that the Statement be transmitted to the ICANN public comment process, copying the ICANN Staff member responsible for this topic, with a note that the Statement is pending ALAC ratification. Once ratified, this Statement will be resubmitted incorporating updated ratification information in the introduction section. ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

[Comments-net-renewal-20apr17] Comment of the Internet Commerce Association
by Phil Corwin May 30, 2017

May 30, 2017

The comment of the Internet Commerce Association (ICA) on the proposed renewal RA for .Net is attached. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

1 0

[Comments-net-renewal-20apr17] Business Constituency (BC) comment on Proposed Renewal of .NET Registry Agreement
by Steve DelBianco May 30, 2017

May 30, 2017

The ICANN Business Constituency (BC) submits the attached comment on the Proposed Renewal of the .NET Registry Agreement. (ICANN comment page at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/net-renewal-2017-04-20-en ) This comment was drafted by Mark Datysgeld and Nivaldo Cleto, with edits by Phil Corwin and Steve DelBianco. It was approved in accord with our charter. — Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

[Comments-net-renewal-20apr17] Comment re: .NET Registry Agreement renewal
by John Poole May 30, 2017

May 30, 2017

re: .NET Registry Agreement renewal My comment is attached in PDF format. John Poole .NET domain names registrant & Editor, DomainMondo.com

1 0

[Comments-net-renewal-20apr17] CIS comments on .NET renewal
by Vidushi Marda May 30, 2017

May 30, 2017

Comments from the Centre for Internet and Society on Renewal of .NET Registry Agreement ______________________________________________ Prepared by: Vidushi Marda With inputs from: Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash. The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is grateful for the opportunity to comment on the proposed renewal of the .NET Registry Agreement. CIS would like to express its strong opposition to the proposed renewal. This is for three primary reasons: 1. Inconsistency with ICANN’s core values It is important to consider the proposed renewal in light of two Core Values which are meant to guide the decisions and actions of ICANN. Section 1.2.(b)(iii) of the Bylaws contemplates ICANN’s responsibility to, “ Where feasible and appropriate, depending on market mechanisms to promote and sustain a competitive environment in the DNS market;” and Section 1.2(b)(iv) envisages, “Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial to the public interest as identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process;”. The presumptive renewal of the .NET Registry agreement precludes an open tender, thereby significantly undermining competition in the DNS market. It ignores the public interest consideration, as the absence of competitive pressure on the contract also means the absence of pressure to lower user costs. 2. Historical accident Verisign’s operations over .NET is a historical accident; one that does not justify its collection of .NET revenues in perpetuity. Policies for Contractual Compliance of Existing Registries[1] was approved in 2007 to include presumptive renewal. However, during the deliberations in that Policy Development Process, there was significant objection to presumption of renewal of registry contracts; with constituencies and individuals pointing out that such renewal was blatantly anti competitive, and allowed for presumption to prevail even in the case of material breaches. The proposed agreement contemplates using a portion of Registry Level Transaction Fees to create a “special restricted fund for developing country Internet communities to enable further participation in the ICANN mission for these stakeholders.” This form of tokenism to the global south will do little to achieve meaningful participation and diversity of civil society. .NET should instead, be opened to a competitive bid and open tender, in order to encourage innovators from around the world to benefit from it. 3. Irregularity of contract The argument that the proposed changes are to bring the contract in line with other gTLD registry agreements doesn't hold because this contract is in itself completely irregular: it was not entered into after a competitive process that other gTLD registry agreements are subject to; and it is not subject to the price sensitivity that other contracts are either. [1] - https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtld-policies/council-report-to-board-PDP-…

1 0

[Comments-net-renewal-20apr17] Against Renewal of .NET registry agreement between ICANN & Verisign >> supplement
by Bruce Henry Lambert May 30, 2017

May 30, 2017

Against Renewal of .NET registry agreement between ICANN & Verisign [supplement] Summary Position of this Comment: STRONG OPPOSITION Regarding proposed .NET registry renewal posted by ICANN at: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/net-renewal-2017-04-20-en Supplement to our prior points: We belatedly recognize some comments critical of Verisign and/or ICANN have been anonymized, the submitters perhaps fearing retaliation or blacklisting. This highlights the possibility many more members of the public might wish to comment, but don't participate due to ICANN / Verisign vast powers, monopolist strength, and our continuing significant need for services under the control of those being critiqued. In such sense, is this public comment exercise at all valid or realistic? ICANN and Verisign employ top tech people, but they're likely underpaid. It's the technical sections that keep the internet safe and secure, yet too much of the multimillions rolling through these organizations goes to executive strategies for monopoly. The contracting procedure offering the no-bid monopoly to operate .NET & .COM contradicts two of ICANN's Core Values: [Use market mechanisms to promote a competitive environment] and [Promote competition to benefit the public interest]. ICANN could & should investigate, calculate & publicly reveal alternatives to the costs of continuing the Verisign monopoly. Thank you all involved for maintaining our multi-stakeholder environment. Sincerely Dr. Bruce Henry Lambert Stockholm, Sweden

1 0