Great work as always Justine. I know you have other tasks to do but Im sure Greg and the team can finish this off for us to send away tomorrow 🤗 M On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:32 PM Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
Firstly, I note that there may well be more than 1 email thread within the CPWG mail list discussing the .ORG RA renewal (and/or other RA renewals). So, there is a certainly the chance I have not been able to follow every one of them.
Secondly, I am responding (partly) to *Bastiaan's and Holly's* request for a re-draft of Greg's 30 April draft, and *Olivier's* request regarding registry fees payable to ICANN Org, which I have (almost) completed, and attach herewith is my two-cents' worth copy of the re-draft (marked as v4, and both redlined and clean copies). The reasons I say "partly" and "almost" are as follows:-
1. I have removed all references to .asia as there is an existing draft statement specifically for the .asia RA renewal, prepared by *Maureen*.
2. Thanking Greg for incorporating my suggestion to include a reference in support of the regularization of PICs into the proposed RA renewals, I have since suggested that we also support the regularization of a few other aspects in the RA renewals. These, including that of PICs, are set out under section (I) of the copy.
3. In respect of price cap debate, I have now set out the different opinions and bases in section (II) including a third which suggests a deferment of the price cap removal with conditions. However, section (II) is incomplete because:- (a) As this point, I still do not know the conclusion for the group supporting removing price caps. (b) I will qualify by saying that I do not know if the suggestion to defer removal is intrinsically linked to one (or more) request for economic study or not. Instead I have based the deferment suggestion on the notion of fairness.
As such, the key portions touching on these two points are marked in yellow highlights for ease of locating.
4. I have included under section (III) the request for registry fees payable to ICANN Org to be adjusted for inflation on an *annual basis and for this adjustment to also be adopted in the base RA*. Olivier/others should indicate whether section (III) is acceptable.
5. I have also included under section (IV) a comment about UA which I think is general enough to be relevant.
*I am handing this v4 over to Greg for settling since he is the designated penholder in this case. Thanks, Greg!*
Thank you all in advance for your consideration. I am hoping that the attachments will get through the mailing list. If not, please refer to the relevant wiki workspace: https://community.icann.org/x/-oSGBg
Justine Chew -----
On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 16:49, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Well, despite presumptive renewal, ICANN is under no obligation to renew
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:43:12 AM *To:* Greg Shatan; Maureen Hilyard *Cc:* CPWG *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal
The problem with a post-removal study is what do you do if you find things have gone south. What is the recourse?
Alan
At 30/04/2019 12:50 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> 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> 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> 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> 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 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg