Siva, I don’t disagree with you. ISOC’s mission is much broader than ICANN, much less At-Large. I am as trying to say that At-Large should view ISOC with a certain kinship, based on shared values and support for priorities that ultimately benefit the end-users — the Internet is for everyone! But the broad spectrum of activities and priorities that ISOC has goes far beyond At-Large’s “band.” On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 1:33 AM sivasubramanian muthusamy < 6.internet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 10:44 AM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote:
I would be happy, Marita, to beef up the last line of the comment and make that aspect more substantial generally! Please send your editorial suggestions. As for what ICANN should do, one possibility is that ICANN reserves the right to roll back price increases, in whole or in part, if the price hikes are abusive or discriminatory.
All, I still hope that there is room for a comment here. It would be particularly unfortunate if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal. Roberto’s email encapsulates many of the reasons why. I look at ISOC as almost
a sister organization of At-Large.
No. Please don't equate ISOC with one Constituency of ICANN. Rather, ISOC's mission is larger than the DNS. While ICANN perceives limitations in it's mission, ISOC's policies and programs span way beyond, and what ISOC does results in what is good for the DNS.
As Roberto points out, ISOC works to accomplish many goals that it shares
with At-Large. ISOC also supports the IETF and even provides its corporate “home.” PIR runs on similar principles. PIR is not a run of the mill commercial registry. In many ways, it was put into business by ISOC. Yet the essence of the concerted campaign against .ORG is that PIR can’t be trusted to abstain from massive price increases, that ISOC could and possibly would push it to do so, and that ISOC is a parasitical organization sucking money out of other non-profits. I feel like we would be throwing ISOC under the bus if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal in particular. [Disclosure: I am the President & Chair of an At Large Structure that is also an ISOC Chapter, ISOC-NY.]
Originally, my draft dealt only with .org. We could just go back to that focus. We can leave a general discussion of price caps to one side if we don’t expand this to .biz and .info (and .asia doesn’t have price caps now).
Based on the discussions we had, I aimed to limit the comment to the concrete issues raised by the agreement rather than go beyond the agreement to some of the broader registry issues. But that’s a question of approach and I’m fine with a broader statement. Alternatively, we could decide not to comment on .biz and .info at all, limit the current statement to .org, and put in a brief UA statement for .asia. But first we would have to get any drafts, revisions, etc. out on the table so we can see what we’re dealing with.
Even asking for an extension is a double-edged sword, since that keeps the doors open for more of the cut-and-paste comments that have been filed in opposition to these renewals.
Best regards,
Greg
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 2:34 AM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
I am reading powerful arguments on both sides of this issue and then reading Greg's proposed comment again. In the particular case of .org, and should we decide to go in the direction that Greg has mapped, would it be possible to beef up the last line. It seems like a throw away but it could be a good bridge between the opposing points of view. The comment asks that ICANN "monitor" future price increases and any market responses to those increases. What should ICANN do if it decides the increases are unwarranted?
@Christopher -- eh bien, le poisson est encore vivant !!
Marita On 4/26/2019 5:41 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Justine,
Thank you for your kind words and helpful comments.
Unfortunately, the “party” got rained out. The CPWG decided not to approve this statement, whether it covers all the renewals or is limited to .ORG. So nothing is being sent to the ALAC for their consideration. I think it’s a good statement, and it would be made better with your suggestions. I am considering revising this draft, cutting the subject back to .ORG and submitting it individually. Also, circulating it for others to submit — either individually or with multiple signatures.
In particular, I am concerned there are a number of comments being made that tend to denigrate PIR and ISOC. This is something I would like to counter. [Full disclosure: I am the President of ISOC-NY (an At-Large Structure) and participate here in that capacity. However, I have not yet asked the ISOC-NY Board to consider endorsing this statement, so I am discussing it here in my individual capacity.]. I honestly think much of what has been said about PIR and ISOC has been untrue or exaggerated and fails to to give credit to ISOC for its mission and unique place in the internet ecosystem.
I believe that PIR was hoping for a comment along the lines of our first draft (which I believe they saw on our site) or our second draft. I’m not comfortable leaving PIR and ISOC to be “thrown under the bus” by ill-informed and prejudicial comments. If ALAC will not comment (or more precisely, if the CPWG wont send ALAC a draft comment for their consideration), then it behooves those who support this statement to submit it or use it as a basis for their own comments.
Best regards,
Greg
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:02 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks to Greg Shatan for the 24 April draft statement.
My comments / suggestion are as follows:-
1. I wonder if it might be better to prepare (and submit) 2 statements instead of a consolidated one ie. one to address .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO and another for .ASIA.. This is because .ASIA had a "different playing field of no price caps" to begin with and in this way, any concerns about price cap removals for .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO can be addressed squarely in comparison with .NET and with reference to the ALAC's 2017 comment. Given that we don't seem to be offering comments to the inclusion of some RPMs.
2. In any case, the draft starts with "Background" but doesn't indicate where that backgrounder ends and where the present comment begins.
3. Related to the point about standardizing RAs as being a good approach, it be useful to draw attention to the use of Addendums as the controlled means for handling necessary variations.
4. Would it not be incumbent on At-Large to also support (or least comment on) regularizing the inclusion of PICs in these RA renewals (if any)?
5. As for UA, it's not clear (to me at least) what we want all ROs to do about it at this point. Given community interest on UA has increased further in recent meetings, actual responsibilities might be better framed in due course. So, it may be prudent to tackle the inclusion of UA into the base Registry Agreement by amending Specification 6, or possibly by way of a consensus policy addition in Specification 1, at a later date.
Justine (my apologies for being late to the "party")
-----
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 04:15, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org> wrote:
Thank you Greg; this draft ALAC Statement on the 4 Registry Agreement Public Comments is posted to each workspace, for comment:
At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .biz Registry Agreement <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...>
At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .asia Registry Agreement <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...>
At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...>
At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .info Registry Agreement <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...>
Kind Regards,
Evin
*From: *GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> *Date: *Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:44 PM *To: *CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org>, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> *Subject: *[GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Fwd: FW: Draft Comment on RA Renewals
*Please see attached.*
--
Greg Shatan
greg@isoc-ny.org
President, ISOC-NY
*"The Internet is for everyone"* _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY *"The Internet is for everyone"*
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing listCPWG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY *"The Internet is for everyone"* _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________
registration-issues-wg mailing list
registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
--
Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY *"The Internet is for everyone"*