I agree Carlton. Such a discussion from within the OFB did seem relevant and perhaps its own submission on the issue. M On Thu, 9 Apr 2026, 9:17 am Carlton Samuels via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Might I ask if this is a kind of ‘*right house, wrong room’* situation here? Or, deemed a distraction being not PDP framed?
Given the substance of the issue, engaging the most policy-active and informed end-user representatives is not only appropriate but a necessary first step to any upstream action.
Or, is mine a peculiar view of this group?
Let us be clear. This group through the ALAC can direct an intervention on any matter whatsoever fitting the description of end user interest. It need not be packaged through the lens of a PDP.
I could have missed it but I do believe the case is made the matter under discussion has some end user impact.
If the objective is to advance this discussion meaningfully, redirecting purely for ticking the right “venue” box is not persuasive.
Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 12:43, Claire Craig via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Mike Thanks for your feedback. I note that it has generated considerable discussion. The concerns raised regarding input by the registries and registrars is valid. This underscores the importance of consistently engaging with and providing feedback to the At-Large community through the CPWG, so that when the team speaks, we accurately reflect the positions of the ALAC/At-Large in advancing the interest of end users.
That said, while the discussion is certainly valuable, as Justine noted, much of it extends beyond the scope of the DNS Abuse PDP 1.
Thanks for initiating this conversation. CCC
On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 08:44, Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all
Another bit of history.
During the Vertical Integration WG - I co-chaired the WG - the issue of unbalancing the relative power between Registries and Registrars has been raised. The problem is that while Registries cannot have a preferential relationship with a Registrar, because if they provide strategic info to one Registrar they are obliged to distribute the same information to all ICANN accredited Registrars, the reverse is not true.
The result is, in a vertically integrated Ry&Rar, that if the owner is the Registrar strategy can be developed in the Registry (their subsidiary) but being the Registrar the formal owner there is no obligation to diffuse anything.
That only few people in the Vertical Integration WG have seen this coming, while the ICANN Board did not, is quite worrisome, whatever the reason for the underestimation. OTOH, it has taken years before some effects of this situation did surface - like the attempt (failed) to put PIR (.org) under the control of a Registrar.
Cheers, Roberto
On 09.04.2026, at 00:27, mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Alan,
This is one of the reasons I have repeatedly been beating the drum about ICANN’s failure to undertake a comprehensive economic study of the unique identifiers that ICANN holds a monopoly over through the IANA function.
On the issue of vertical integration, the ICANN Board acted unilaterally in approving the change and has never undertaken a proper economic or legal analysis of its decision. The listing/marketing fees that Registrars are imposing on Registry Operators are a silent tax on prospective TLD applicants that most do not fully appreciate.
Reading between the lines of the CPH Summit session on "do not enrage the channel" basically discourages innovation at the Registry Level. Instead of applauding the ZERO instances of DNS abuse in fTLDs TLDs, most Registrars do not want to be bothered. They just want all Registries to be the same cookie-cutter business model.
Anyone up for an economic fact-finding excursion? I know where the bodies are buried. I just need some help digging them up and documenting them.
Best regards,
Michael
*From: *Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 4:19 PM *To: *mike palage.com <mike@palage.com> *Cc: *ICANN At-Large Staff via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] DNS Abuse PDP
Sadly, I tend to agree with Mike. Eons ago when the GNSO Council was reorganized, one of the rationales for two SG (Rr and Ry) was that their interests were different. Vertical integration reduced that, but the overriding consideration that Registries do not want to go against their customers was and has been largely ignored. It takes something VERY important to Registries to disagree with Registrars. Generally, they either agree, or simply stay quiet.
That results in a pretty impenetrable barrier.
Alan
On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 12:29 PM mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Claire,
I just wanted to document my Zoom intervention on today’s CPWG call here via the mailing list to hopefully spur additional discussion.
Claire I will document my concerns here and in the CPWG mailing list. Louie Touton’s original General Counsel had a saying that ICANN’s mission is to protect competition, not individual competitors’ business models. All too often in ICANN’s current PDP, Registrars and Registrars flex their de facto veto authority at the GNSO to impede real, meaningful change. Why this is BAD for ICANN is that it demonstrates that certain aspects of ICANN’s multistakeholder model have been captured, thus leaving disenfranchised members to resort to national laws, see NIS2, Chinese Real Name Verification, India litigation, etc.
Sadly, one can see the handwriting on the wall on how this PDP will end, and one needs to look no further back in history than the transfer PDP. The registrars will get almost everything they want, and ALAC will get some consolation footnote about addressing their concerns in future work.
Registrars will be out in force in this PDP as they are the tip of the Abuse spear since most Registries have now gone thin. Registries will largely remain silent because they do not want to alienate their channel or incur higher listing/placement fees. In fact, the importance of Registries NOT upsetting their Registrar channel is a topic of an upcoming session at the ICANN Contractual Party Summit, see https://cpsummit2026.sched.com/event/2GbE1/how-to-engage-and-not-enrage-the-...
Thoughts? Comments?
Best regards,
Michael _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- CCC _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.