Dear Olivier:

When Macron framed the European view on IG as opposed to both the "California" and "Chinese models, I read that as the French way of saying a pox on both houses.

Then he went on to appropriate much of the NetMundial agenda and made the IGF first among equals of the I* entities, to me the European view is settled: regulation under the multilateral umbrella with Europe and surrogates in defining roles. (Maybe a European Under Sec Gen for IGF).

Not surprised at all. The aporoach seems to me simply follow the food chain and pass it thru the folks - registries, registrars and domainers - that depend on ICANN.

Match point and game.

Best,

-Carlton

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, 12:08 am Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com wrote:

Dear Carlton,

On 17/11/2018 23:28, Carlton Samuels wrote:

You couldn't make this up as a racket- a perfect one! - and remain at large, pun intended. Just wish I was hip to it before now.

I have heard this accusation from ICANN critics for many years and personally do not subscribe to describe it in such a way.
However, in recent times, including speaking to Global IGF and UK IGF participants who were not involved in ICANN, it appears that following President Macron's call for more regulation, many European stakeholders are saying that if ICANN is unable to assume regulation of Registry and Registrar contracts in order to protect consumers, European countries should introduce local legislation to regulate the industry. Sad as it may be, not many people trust ICANN to do anything and more and more consumers consider regulation as a good thing.
Kindest regards,

Olivier