Thanks Greg. We are definitely moving to a much more refined comment that many are ready to support. However, given the divisions here, there is no denying that there is still considerable discomfort in the community re: removing price caps on .org. To be an honest comment, this should be mentioned. Justine had something to that effect in her draft. re: the economic study - If the work has already been done, then I suppose all would be ready to launch as soon as the price cap was off. However, once the price cap is off, it is going to be hard to put the genie back in the bottle whatever the economic study says -- so I am not too optimistic. On your point about sophisticated lobby groups pushing people towards action, yes, I've seen this sort of campaign too. And been cynical about them. But they still have to tap into something deep to move people to action. So, I don't discount the feeling that then causes people and groups to access the tools provided to them to express that feeling. Marita On 4/30/2019 6:50 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
All,
A few responses to the various earlier emails.
@Ricardo, Good point. I think it makes sense to call for several studies over time, rather than a single study.
@Olivier, My omission of your contribution was an oversight, not a conclusion that the view lacked support or was off-topic. My apologies. I, for one, would be happy to add something on Registry fees to the draft. Please provide text or point me to the best iteration of your suggested text (which I missed, sadly). Or I can take what is in Justine’s draft.
Personally, I am not in favor of doing an economic study before removing the price cap. As Jonathan notes, this work has already been done. My thought was to have a study done in “real time,” based on observing the domain name market(s) after the caps were lifted, so that the effects could be accurately observed and analyzed, and used to inform future action. Predictive studies are by their nature speculative, and can more easily be bent in one direction or the other.. They tend to be more successful and reliable when the study structure and method is well-understood and time-tested (e.g., a pre-merger analysis). A predictive study here may prove far less reliable and useful, given the number of variables and inputs and the novelty of the study. I also think it’s an unrealistic request. But as penholder, I will draft whatever the consensus becomes.
Greg
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:11 PM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thank you, John. I think a consensus call on the document will be required from this session because the extension we requested closes soon after and Evin has to prepare the doc for submission. We can do ratification by the ALAC after the fact but a recorded consensus would be helpful.
M
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:50 AM John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com <mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>> wrote:
Maureen,
In the event that you're not at tomorrow's meeting, do you want me to take any action on your behalf as vice chair?
Sent from my Pixel 3XL
John Laprise, Ph.D.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 9:59 AM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote:
I like this version Greg .
In case I can't make tomorrow's CPWG meeting. I believe the new version provides a good compromise of the different views that have been presented by the CPWG discussants. I like the idea of an economic study as well as Marita's suggestion to delay any change until the results of such a study were revealed. I also prefer putting the RAs under one umbrella statement. The separate .asia statement reinforces support for the inclusion of UA. Anything else that is relevant would be in the general ALAC RA statement.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 8:14 PM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org <mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org>> wrote:
All,
I am attaching another, further revised draft public comment on the .ORG renewal, after sifting through the various recent conversations on the list. I will try to circulate a redline in the morning, New York time, but can't right now.
I thought about including something on UA, but for .ORG and in the absence of proposed language, I did not see the obvious hook in this statement to bring that concept in.
Best regards,
Greg
Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org <mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org> President, ISOC-NY /"The Internet is for everyone"/ _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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