I don’t think this is a fair characterization of the document:
Sometimes, long sections of the text are used to speak to one side of
an issue, but much less is spent discussing the other side of that
issue. e.g. the document stretches to include every possible
justification for allowing unlimited fee increases, but doesn't point
to the strong arguments on the other side, reflected not only in my
statement, but the statement of thousands of members of the public.
The intent of the document, as revised, was to describe the significant strands of thought being considered in At-Large, not every position taken by anyone. The arguments on the “other side” (though I think there are more than two sides here, I assume you mean your side) didn’t get significant traction. I think “the statement of thousands of members of the public” is an unintentionally accurate description of what has been submitted, since a great number of the comments were generated using the tool on the ICA website and are thus identical (or to be fair, use one of four variations kindly supplied by ICA).
The $1.00 idea, dealt with elsewhere, is bunk.
In a consensus driven process, not everyone involved will end up supporting the consensus. But that is not a reason not to submit the consensus document.
Best regards,
Greg
Thanks for your input George. We will take it into consideration.
I would note that your statement regarding a statement from a collective group is exactly how the ALAC functions in practice as described in the bylaws and humbly submit that your argument is with them.
Sent from my Pixel 3XL
John Laprise, Ph.D.
Would folks please send whatever version is being contemplated for
discussion using the open PDF format? I don't use Microsoft Word, and
different viewers that I'm trying to read these documents (Google
Docs, ChromeOS' reader, etc.) are giving different results, with some
words completely disappearing in some documents.
I noticed some of the wording has changed, too, and overall disapprove
of the document, for reasons previously explained (e.g. imposition of
the URS, and the fee increases), as per my own public comments:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/003178.html
Sometimes, long sections of the text are used to speak to one side of
an issue, but much less is spent discussing the other side of that
issue. e.g. the document stretches to include every possible
justification for allowing unlimited fee increases, but doesn't point
to the strong arguments on the other side, reflected not only in my
statement, but the statement of thousands of members of the public.
Nowhere does it mention that under a competitive tender, for example,
that registry fees would be less than $1.00 per domain name per year,
and that registry operators are already making enormous profits. All
the arguments have already been posted.
For the record, as discussed previously, I don't support a statement
being made as a collective group. Folks should have made individual
statements, if they felt strongly about the issue, and thereby attach
their own name to their own statement, rather than purport to
represent a consensus of 3.9 billion or more users.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/273018/number-of-internet-users-worldwide/
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:29 PM Judith Hellerstein
<judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote:
>
> HI Greg,
>
> This is an excellent statement. I have made some grammatical changes to the document and have attached these as a revision in track changes
>
> See all at 4pm
>
> Judith
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO
> Hellerstein & Associates
> 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008
> Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein
> Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517
> E-mail: Judith@jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com
> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/
> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
>
> On 5/2/2019 12:04 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Building on Justine’s excellent last draft, I have edited and revised the draft somewhat for consideration on today’s call. The redline is attached. i will send a clean and a PDF asap.
>
> I look forward to today’s call.
>
> 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
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 ShatanPresident, ISOC-NY
"The Internet is for everyone"