Justine, Thank you for your kind words and helpful comments. Unfortunately, the “party” got rained out. The CPWG decided not to approve this statement, whether it covers all the renewals or is limited to .ORG. So nothing is being sent to the ALAC for their consideration. I think it’s a good statement, and it would be made better with your suggestions. I am considering revising this draft, cutting the subject back to .ORG and submitting it individually. Also, circulating it for others to submit — either individually or with multiple signatures. In particular, I am concerned there are a number of comments being made that tend to denigrate PIR and ISOC. This is something I would like to counter. [Full disclosure: I am the President of ISOC-NY (an At-Large Structure) and participate here in that capacity. However, I have not yet asked the ISOC-NY Board to consider endorsing this statement, so I am discussing it here in my individual capacity.]. I honestly think much of what has been said about PIR and ISOC has been untrue or exaggerated and fails to to give credit to ISOC for its mission and unique place in the internet ecosystem. I believe that PIR was hoping for a comment along the lines of our first draft (which I believe they saw on our site) or our second draft. I’m not comfortable leaving PIR and ISOC to be “thrown under the bus” by ill-informed and prejudicial comments. If ALAC will not comment (or more precisely, if the CPWG wont send ALAC a draft comment for their consideration), then it behooves those who support this statement to submit it or use it as a basis for their own comments. Best regards, Greg On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:02 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks to Greg Shatan for the 24 April draft statement.

My comments / suggestion are as follows:-

1. I wonder if it might be better to prepare (and submit) 2 statements instead of a consolidated one ie. one to address .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO and another for .ASIA.. This is because .ASIA had a "different playing field of no price caps" to begin with and in this way, any concerns about price cap removals for .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO can be addressed squarely in comparison with .NET and with reference to the ALAC's 2017 comment. Given that we don't seem to be offering comments to the inclusion of some RPMs.

2. In any case, the draft starts with "Background" but doesn't indicate where that backgrounder ends and where the present comment begins.

3. Related to the point about standardizing RAs as being a good approach, it be useful to draw attention to the use of Addendums as the controlled means for handling necessary variations.

4. Would it not be incumbent on At-Large to also support (or least comment on) regularizing the inclusion of PICs in these RA renewals (if any)?

5. As for UA, it's not clear (to me at least) what we want all ROs to do about it at this point. Given community interest on UA has increased further in recent meetings, actual responsibilities might be better framed in due course. So, it may be prudent to tackle the inclusion of UA into the base Registry Agreement by amending Specification 6, or possibly by way of a consensus policy addition in Specification 1, at a later date.

Justine (my apologies for being late to the "party")

-----

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 04:15, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org> wrote:

...

Thank you Greg; this draft ALAC Statement on the 4 Registry Agreement Public Comments is posted to each workspace, for comment:

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .biz Registry Agreement <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...>

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .asia Registry Agreement <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...>

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...>

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .info Registry Agreement <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...>

Kind Regards,

Evin

*From: *GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> *Date: *Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:44 PM *To: *CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org>, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> *Subject: *[GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Fwd: FW: Draft Comment on RA Renewals

*Please see attached.*

--

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 _______________________________________________ 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"*

I would be happy, Marita, to beef up the last line of the comment and make that aspect more substantial generally! Please send your editorial suggestions. As for what ICANN should do, one possibility is that ICANN reserves the right to roll back price increases, in whole or in part, if the price hikes are abusive or discriminatory. All, I still hope that there is room for a comment here. It would be particularly unfortunate if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal. Roberto’s email encapsulates many of the reasons why. I look at ISOC as almost a sister organization of At-Large. As Roberto points out, ISOC works to accomplish many goals that it shares with At-Large. ISOC also supports the IETF and even provides its corporate “home.” PIR runs on similar principles. PIR is not a run of the mill commercial registry. In many ways, it was put into business by ISOC. Yet the essence of the concerted campaign against .ORG is that PIR can’t be trusted to abstain from massive price increases, that ISOC could and possibly would push it to do so, and that ISOC is a parasitical organization sucking money out of other non-profits. I feel like we would be throwing ISOC under the bus if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal in particular. [Disclosure: I am the President & Chair of an At Large Structure that is also an ISOC Chapter, ISOC-NY.] Originally, my draft dealt only with .org. We could just go back to that focus. We can leave a general discussion of price caps to one side if we don’t expand this to .biz and .info (and .asia doesn’t have price caps now). Based on the discussions we had, I aimed to limit the comment to the concrete issues raised by the agreement rather than go beyond the agreement to some of the broader registry issues. But that’s a question of approach and I’m fine with a broader statement. Alternatively, we could decide not to comment on .biz and .info at all, limit the current statement to .org, and put in a brief UA statement for .asia. But first we would have to get any drafts, revisions, etc. out on the table so we can see what we’re dealing with. Even asking for an extension is a double-edged sword, since that keeps the doors open for more of the cut-and-paste comments that have been filed in opposition to these renewals. Best regards, Greg On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 2:34 AM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:

I am reading powerful arguments on both sides of this issue and then reading Greg's proposed comment again. In the particular case of .org, and should we decide to go in the direction that Greg has mapped, would it be possible to beef up the last line. It seems like a throw away but it could be a good bridge between the opposing points of view. The comment asks that ICANN "monitor" future price increases and any market responses to those increases. What should ICANN do if it decides the increases are unwarranted?

@Christopher -- eh bien, le poisson est encore vivant !!

Marita On 4/26/2019 5:41 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:

Justine,

Thank you for your kind words and helpful comments.

Unfortunately, the “party” got rained out. The CPWG decided not to approve this statement, whether it covers all the renewals or is limited to .ORG. So nothing is being sent to the ALAC for their consideration. I think it’s a good statement, and it would be made better with your suggestions. I am considering revising this draft, cutting the subject back to .ORG and submitting it individually. Also, circulating it for others to submit — either individually or with multiple signatures.

In particular, I am concerned there are a number of comments being made that tend to denigrate PIR and ISOC. This is something I would like to counter. [Full disclosure: I am the President of ISOC-NY (an At-Large Structure) and participate here in that capacity. However, I have not yet asked the ISOC-NY Board to consider endorsing this statement, so I am discussing it here in my individual capacity.]. I honestly think much of what has been said about PIR and ISOC has been untrue or exaggerated and fails to to give credit to ISOC for its mission and unique place in the internet ecosystem.

I believe that PIR was hoping for a comment along the lines of our first draft (which I believe they saw on our site) or our second draft. I’m not comfortable leaving PIR and ISOC to be “thrown under the bus” by ill-informed and prejudicial comments. If ALAC will not comment (or more precisely, if the CPWG wont send ALAC a draft comment for their consideration), then it behooves those who support this statement to submit it or use it as a basis for their own comments.

Best regards,

Greg

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:02 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Thanks to Greg Shatan for the 24 April draft statement.

My comments / suggestion are as follows:-

1. I wonder if it might be better to prepare (and submit) 2 statements instead of a consolidated one ie. one to address .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO and another for .ASIA.. This is because .ASIA had a "different playing field of no price caps" to begin with and in this way, any concerns about price cap removals for .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO can be addressed squarely in comparison with .NET and with reference to the ALAC's 2017 comment. Given that we don't seem to be offering comments to the inclusion of some RPMs.

2. In any case, the draft starts with "Background" but doesn't indicate where that backgrounder ends and where the present comment begins.

3. Related to the point about standardizing RAs as being a good approach, it be useful to draw attention to the use of Addendums as the controlled means for handling necessary variations.

4. Would it not be incumbent on At-Large to also support (or least comment on) regularizing the inclusion of PICs in these RA renewals (if any)?

5. As for UA, it's not clear (to me at least) what we want all ROs to do about it at this point. Given community interest on UA has increased further in recent meetings, actual responsibilities might be better framed in due course. So, it may be prudent to tackle the inclusion of UA into the base Registry Agreement by amending Specification 6, or possibly by way of a consensus policy addition in Specification 1, at a later date.

Justine (my apologies for being late to the "party")

-----

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 04:15, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org> wrote:

...

Thank you Greg; this draft ALAC Statement on the 4 Registry Agreement Public Comments is posted to each workspace, for comment:

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .biz Registry Agreement <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...>

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .asia Registry Agreement <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...>

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...>

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .info Registry Agreement <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...>

Kind Regards,

Evin

*From: *GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> *Date: *Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:44 PM *To: *CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org>, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> *Subject: *[GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Fwd: FW: Draft Comment on RA Renewals

*Please see attached.*

--

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 _______________________________________________ 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 listCPWG@icann.orghttps://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"*

Siva, I don’t disagree with you. ISOC’s mission is much broader than ICANN, much less At-Large. I am as trying to say that At-Large should view ISOC with a certain kinship, based on shared values and support for priorities that ultimately benefit the end-users — the Internet is for everyone! But the broad spectrum of activities and priorities that ISOC has goes far beyond At-Large’s “band.” On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 1:33 AM sivasubramanian muthusamy < 6.internet@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 10:44 AM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote:

...

I would be happy, Marita, to beef up the last line of the comment and make that aspect more substantial generally! Please send your editorial suggestions. As for what ICANN should do, one possibility is that ICANN reserves the right to roll back price increases, in whole or in part, if the price hikes are abusive or discriminatory.

All, I still hope that there is room for a comment here. It would be particularly unfortunate if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal. Roberto’s email encapsulates many of the reasons why. I look at ISOC as almost

a sister organization of At-Large.

...

No. Please don't equate ISOC with one Constituency of ICANN. Rather, ISOC's mission is larger than the DNS. While ICANN perceives limitations in it's mission, ISOC's policies and programs span way beyond, and what ISOC does results in what is good for the DNS.

As Roberto points out, ISOC works to accomplish many goals that it shares

...

with At-Large. ISOC also supports the IETF and even provides its corporate “home.” PIR runs on similar principles. PIR is not a run of the mill commercial registry. In many ways, it was put into business by ISOC. Yet the essence of the concerted campaign against .ORG is that PIR can’t be trusted to abstain from massive price increases, that ISOC could and possibly would push it to do so, and that ISOC is a parasitical organization sucking money out of other non-profits. I feel like we would be throwing ISOC under the bus if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal in particular. [Disclosure: I am the President & Chair of an At Large Structure that is also an ISOC Chapter, ISOC-NY.]

Originally, my draft dealt only with .org. We could just go back to that focus. We can leave a general discussion of price caps to one side if we don’t expand this to .biz and .info (and .asia doesn’t have price caps now).

Based on the discussions we had, I aimed to limit the comment to the concrete issues raised by the agreement rather than go beyond the agreement to some of the broader registry issues. But that’s a question of approach and I’m fine with a broader statement. Alternatively, we could decide not to comment on .biz and .info at all, limit the current statement to .org, and put in a brief UA statement for .asia. But first we would have to get any drafts, revisions, etc. out on the table so we can see what we’re dealing with.

Even asking for an extension is a double-edged sword, since that keeps the doors open for more of the cut-and-paste comments that have been filed in opposition to these renewals.

Best regards,

Greg

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 2:34 AM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:

...

I am reading powerful arguments on both sides of this issue and then reading Greg's proposed comment again. In the particular case of .org, and should we decide to go in the direction that Greg has mapped, would it be possible to beef up the last line. It seems like a throw away but it could be a good bridge between the opposing points of view. The comment asks that ICANN "monitor" future price increases and any market responses to those increases. What should ICANN do if it decides the increases are unwarranted?

@Christopher -- eh bien, le poisson est encore vivant !!

Marita On 4/26/2019 5:41 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:

Justine,

Thank you for your kind words and helpful comments.

Unfortunately, the “party” got rained out. The CPWG decided not to approve this statement, whether it covers all the renewals or is limited to .ORG. So nothing is being sent to the ALAC for their consideration. I think it’s a good statement, and it would be made better with your suggestions. I am considering revising this draft, cutting the subject back to .ORG and submitting it individually. Also, circulating it for others to submit — either individually or with multiple signatures.

In particular, I am concerned there are a number of comments being made that tend to denigrate PIR and ISOC. This is something I would like to counter. [Full disclosure: I am the President of ISOC-NY (an At-Large Structure) and participate here in that capacity. However, I have not yet asked the ISOC-NY Board to consider endorsing this statement, so I am discussing it here in my individual capacity.]. I honestly think much of what has been said about PIR and ISOC has been untrue or exaggerated and fails to to give credit to ISOC for its mission and unique place in the internet ecosystem.

I believe that PIR was hoping for a comment along the lines of our first draft (which I believe they saw on our site) or our second draft. I’m not comfortable leaving PIR and ISOC to be “thrown under the bus” by ill-informed and prejudicial comments. If ALAC will not comment (or more precisely, if the CPWG wont send ALAC a draft comment for their consideration), then it behooves those who support this statement to submit it or use it as a basis for their own comments.

Best regards,

Greg

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:02 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Thanks to Greg Shatan for the 24 April draft statement.

My comments / suggestion are as follows:-

1. I wonder if it might be better to prepare (and submit) 2 statements instead of a consolidated one ie. one to address .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO and another for .ASIA.. This is because .ASIA had a "different playing field of no price caps" to begin with and in this way, any concerns about price cap removals for .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO can be addressed squarely in comparison with .NET and with reference to the ALAC's 2017 comment. Given that we don't seem to be offering comments to the inclusion of some RPMs.

2. In any case, the draft starts with "Background" but doesn't indicate where that backgrounder ends and where the present comment begins.

3. Related to the point about standardizing RAs as being a good approach, it be useful to draw attention to the use of Addendums as the controlled means for handling necessary variations.

4. Would it not be incumbent on At-Large to also support (or least comment on) regularizing the inclusion of PICs in these RA renewals (if any)?

5. As for UA, it's not clear (to me at least) what we want all ROs to do about it at this point. Given community interest on UA has increased further in recent meetings, actual responsibilities might be better framed in due course. So, it may be prudent to tackle the inclusion of UA into the base Registry Agreement by amending Specification 6, or possibly by way of a consensus policy addition in Specification 1, at a later date.

Justine (my apologies for being late to the "party")

-----

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 04:15, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org> wrote:

...

Thank you Greg; this draft ALAC Statement on the 4 Registry Agreement Public Comments is posted to each workspace, for comment:

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .biz Registry Agreement <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...>

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .asia Registry Agreement <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...>

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...>

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .info Registry Agreement <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...>

Kind Regards,

Evin

*From: *GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> *Date: *Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:44 PM *To: *CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org>, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> *Subject: *[GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Fwd: FW: Draft Comment on RA Renewals

*Please see attached.*

--

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 _______________________________________________ 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 listCPWG@icann.orghttps://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

--

Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY *"The Internet is for everyone"*

Dear All, Please see an At-Large workspace devoted to the ALAC Statement on Registry Agreements<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+ALAC...>: https://community.icann.org/x/-oSGBg The current draft of the statement is here, and comments from this mailing list will be copied over. Thank you, Evin From: registration-issues-wg <registration-issues-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> Date: Monday, April 29, 2019 at 9:30 AM To: Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Fwd: FW: Draft Comment on RA Renewals Greg I fear it is almost too late, but I will repeat what I said on the CPWG: .ORG is special and if we don’t comment on the others, or if comments on .ASIA are made separately, we should, at least, comment on .ORG which is for international non-profits - in the end user interest. And to make a point that was made in the conversation, monitoring will not help; once a contract is signed, arrangements are made based upon that contract, so undoing those arrangements because a review says they aren’t operating as they should would be nigh on impossible. Holly On Apr 29, 2019, at 3:58 PM, Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org<mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org>> wrote: Siva, I don’t disagree with you. ISOC’s mission is much broader than ICANN, much less At-Large. I am as trying to say that At-Large should view ISOC with a certain kinship, based on shared values and support for priorities that ultimately benefit the end-users — the Internet is for everyone! But the broad spectrum of activities and priorities that ISOC has goes far beyond At-Large’s “band.” On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 1:33 AM sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet@gmail.com<mailto:6.internet@gmail.com>> wrote: On Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 10:44 AM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org<mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org>> wrote: I would be happy, Marita, to beef up the last line of the comment and make that aspect more substantial generally! Please send your editorial suggestions. As for what ICANN should do, one possibility is that ICANN reserves the right to roll back price increases, in whole or in part, if the price hikes are abusive or discriminatory. All, I still hope that there is room for a comment here. It would be particularly unfortunate if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal. Roberto’s email encapsulates many of the reasons why. I look at ISOC as almost a sister organization of At-Large. No. Please don't equate ISOC with one Constituency of ICANN. Rather, ISOC's mission is larger than the DNS. While ICANN perceives limitations in it's mission, ISOC's policies and programs span way beyond, and what ISOC does results in what is good for the DNS. As Roberto points out, ISOC works to accomplish many goals that it shares with At-Large. ISOC also supports the IETF and even provides its corporate “home.” PIR runs on similar principles. PIR is not a run of the mill commercial registry. In many ways, it was put into business by ISOC. Yet the essence of the concerted campaign against .ORG is that PIR can’t be trusted to abstain from massive price increases, that ISOC could and possibly would push it to do so, and that ISOC is a parasitical organization sucking money out of other non-profits. I feel like we would be throwing ISOC under the bus if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal in particular. [Disclosure: I am the President & Chair of an At Large Structure that is also an ISOC Chapter, ISOC-NY.] Originally, my draft dealt only with .org. We could just go back to that focus. We can leave a general discussion of price caps to one side if we don’t expand this to .biz and .info (and .asia doesn’t have price caps now). Based on the discussions we had, I aimed to limit the comment to the concrete issues raised by the agreement rather than go beyond the agreement to some of the broader registry issues. But that’s a question of approach and I’m fine with a broader statement. Alternatively, we could decide not to comment on .biz and .info at all, limit the current statement to .org, and put in a brief UA statement for .asia. But first we would have to get any drafts, revisions, etc. out on the table so we can see what we’re dealing with. Even asking for an extension is a double-edged sword, since that keeps the doors open for more of the cut-and-paste comments that have been filed in opposition to these renewals. Best regards, Greg On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 2:34 AM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: I am reading powerful arguments on both sides of this issue and then reading Greg's proposed comment again. In the particular case of .org, and should we decide to go in the direction that Greg has mapped, would it be possible to beef up the last line. It seems like a throw away but it could be a good bridge between the opposing points of view. The comment asks that ICANN "monitor" future price increases and any market responses to those increases. What should ICANN do if it decides the increases are unwarranted? @Christopher -- eh bien, le poisson est encore vivant !! Marita On 4/26/2019 5:41 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: Justine, Thank you for your kind words and helpful comments. Unfortunately, the “party” got rained out. The CPWG decided not to approve this statement, whether it covers all the renewals or is limited to .ORG. So nothing is being sent to the ALAC for their consideration. I think it’s a good statement, and it would be made better with your suggestions. I am considering revising this draft, cutting the subject back to .ORG and submitting it individually. Also, circulating it for others to submit — either individually or with multiple signatures. In particular, I am concerned there are a number of comments being made that tend to denigrate PIR and ISOC. This is something I would like to counter. [Full disclosure: I am the President of ISOC-NY (an At-Large Structure) and participate here in that capacity. However, I have not yet asked the ISOC-NY Board to consider endorsing this statement, so I am discussing it here in my individual capacity.]. I honestly think much of what has been said about PIR and ISOC has been untrue or exaggerated and fails to to give credit to ISOC for its mission and unique place in the internet ecosystem. I believe that PIR was hoping for a comment along the lines of our first draft (which I believe they saw on our site) or our second draft. I’m not comfortable leaving PIR and ISOC to be “thrown under the bus” by ill-informed and prejudicial comments. If ALAC will not comment (or more precisely, if the CPWG wont send ALAC a draft comment for their consideration), then it behooves those who support this statement to submit it or use it as a basis for their own comments. Best regards, Greg On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:02 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks to Greg Shatan for the 24 April draft statement. My comments / suggestion are as follows:- 1. I wonder if it might be better to prepare (and submit) 2 statements instead of a consolidated one ie. one to address .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO and another for .ASIA.. This is because .ASIA had a "different playing field of no price caps" to begin with and in this way, any concerns about price cap removals for .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO can be addressed squarely in comparison with .NET and with reference to the ALAC's 2017 comment. Given that we don't seem to be offering comments to the inclusion of some RPMs. 2. In any case, the draft starts with "Background" but doesn't indicate where that backgrounder ends and where the present comment begins. 3. Related to the point about standardizing RAs as being a good approach, it be useful to draw attention to the use of Addendums as the controlled means for handling necessary variations. 4. Would it not be incumbent on At-Large to also support (or least comment on) regularizing the inclusion of PICs in these RA renewals (if any)? 5. As for UA, it's not clear (to me at least) what we want all ROs to do about it at this point. Given community interest on UA has increased further in recent meetings, actual responsibilities might be better framed in due course. So, it may be prudent to tackle the inclusion of UA into the base Registry Agreement by amending Specification 6, or possibly by way of a consensus policy addition in Specification 1, at a later date. Justine (my apologies for being late to the "party") ----- On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 04:15, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org<mailto:evin.erdogdu@icann.org>> wrote: Thank you Greg; this draft ALAC Statement on the 4 Registry Agreement Public Comments is posted to each workspace, for comment: At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .biz Registry Agreement<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...> At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .asia Registry Agreement<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...> At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...> At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .info Registry Agreement<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...> Kind Regards, Evin From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org<mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org>> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:44 PM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>>, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org<mailto:evin.erdogdu@icann.org>>, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> Subject: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Fwd: FW: Draft Comment on RA Renewals Please see attached. -- 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 _______________________________________________ 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 [atlarge-lists.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.o...> 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<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 [atlarge-lists.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.o...> 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<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg -- 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

Thanks Evin. That will be very helpful. Marita On 4/29/2019 9:23 AM, Evin Erdogdu wrote:

Dear All,

Please see an At-Large workspace devoted to the ALAC Statement on Registry Agreements <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+ALAC...>: https://community.icann.org/x/-oSGBg

The current draft of the statement is here, and comments from this mailing list will be copied over.

Thank you,

Evin

*From: *registration-issues-wg <registration-issues-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> *Date: *Monday, April 29, 2019 at 9:30 AM *To: *Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> *Cc: *CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Fwd: FW: Draft Comment on RA Renewals

Greg

I fear it is almost too late, but I will repeat what I said on the CPWG: .ORG is special and if we don’t comment on the others, or if comments on .ASIA are made separately, we should, at least, comment on .ORG which is for international non-profits - in the end user interest.  And to make a point that was made in the conversation, monitoring will not help; once a contract is signed, arrangements are made based upon that contract, so undoing those arrangements because a review says they aren’t operating as they should would be nigh on impossible.

Holly

On Apr 29, 2019, at 3:58 PM, Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org <mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org>> wrote:

Siva,

I don’t disagree with you. ISOC’s mission is much broader than ICANN, much less At-Large.  I am as trying to say that At-Large should view ISOC with a certain kinship, based on shared values and support for priorities that ultimately benefit the end-users — the Internet is for everyone!

 But the broad spectrum of activities and priorities that ISOC has goes far beyond At-Large’s “band.”

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 1:33 AM sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet@gmail.com <mailto:6.internet@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 10:44 AM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org <mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org>> wrote:

I would be happy, Marita, to beef up the last line of the comment and make that aspect more substantial generally!   Please send your editorial suggestions.  As for what ICANN should do, one possibility is that ICANN reserves the right to roll back price increases, in whole or in part, if the price hikes are abusive or discriminatory.

All, I still hope that there is room for a comment here.  It would be particularly unfortunate if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal.  Roberto’s email encapsulates many of the reasons why.  I look at ISOC as almost

a sister organization of At-Large.

No. Please don't equate ISOC with one Constituency of ICANN. Rather, ISOC's mission is larger than the DNS. While ICANN perceives limitations in it's mission, ISOC's policies and programs span way beyond, and what ISOC does results in what is good for the DNS.

As Roberto points out, ISOC works to accomplish many goals that it shares with At-Large.  ISOC also supports the IETF and even provides its corporate “home.” PIR runs on similar principles. PIR is not a run of the mill commercial registry.  In many ways, it was put into business by ISOC.  Yet the essence of the concerted campaign against .ORG is that PIR can’t be trusted to abstain from massive price increases, that ISOC could and possibly would push it to do so, and that ISOC is a parasitical organization sucking money out of other non-profits. I feel like we would be throwing ISOC under the bus if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal in particular.  [Disclosure: I am the President & Chair of an At Large Structure that is also an ISOC Chapter, ISOC-NY.]

Originally, my draft dealt only with .org. We could just go back to that focus.  We can leave a general discussion of price caps to one side if we don’t expand this to .biz and .info (and .asia doesn’t have price caps now).

Based on the discussions we had, I aimed to limit the comment to the concrete issues raised by the agreement rather than go beyond the agreement to some of the broader registry issues.  But that’s a question of approach and I’m fine with a broader statement.   Alternatively, we could decide not to comment on .biz and .info at all, limit the current statement to .org, and put in a brief UA statement for .asia.   But first we would have to get any drafts, revisions, etc. out on the table so we can see what we’re dealing with.

Even asking for an extension is a double-edged sword, since that keeps the doors open for more of the cut-and-paste comments that have been filed in opposition to these renewals.

Best regards,

Greg

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 2:34 AM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote:

I am reading powerful arguments on both sides of this issue and then reading Greg's proposed comment again. In the particular case of .org, and should we decide to go in the direction that Greg has mapped, would it be possible to beef up the last line. It seems like a throw away but it could be a good bridge between the opposing points of view. The comment asks that ICANN "monitor" future price increases and any market responses to those increases. What should ICANN do if it decides the increases are unwarranted?

@Christopher -- eh bien, le poisson est encore vivant !!

Marita

On 4/26/2019 5:41 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:

Justine,

Thank you for your kind words and helpful comments.

Unfortunately, the “party” got rained out.  The CPWG decided not to approve this statement, whether it covers all the renewals or is limited to .ORG.  So nothing is being sent to the ALAC for their consideration. I think it’s a good statement, and it would be made better with your suggestions.  I am considering revising this draft, cutting the subject back to .ORG and submitting it individually.  Also, circulating it for others to submit — either individually or with multiple signatures.

In particular, I am concerned there are a number of comments being made that tend to denigrate PIR and ISOC.  This is something I would like to counter.  [Full disclosure: I am the President of ISOC-NY (an At-Large Structure) and participate here in that capacity. However, I have not yet asked the ISOC-NY Board to consider endorsing this statement, so I am discussing it here in my individual capacity.]. I honestly think much of what has been said about PIR and ISOC has been untrue or exaggerated and fails to to give credit to ISOC for its mission and unique place in the internet ecosystem.

I believe that PIR was hoping for a comment along the lines of our first draft (which I believe they saw on our site) or our second draft.  I’m not comfortable leaving PIR and ISOC to be “thrown under the bus” by ill-informed and prejudicial comments. If ALAC will not comment (or more precisely, if the CPWG wont send ALAC a draft comment for their consideration), then it behooves those who support this statement to submit it or use it as a basis for their own comments.

Best regards,

Greg

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:02 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com <mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>> wrote:

Thanks to Greg Shatan for the 24 April draft statement.

My comments / suggestion are as follows:-

1. I wonder if it might be better to prepare (and submit) 2 statements instead of a consolidated one ie. one to address .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO and another for .ASIA.. This is because .ASIA had a "different playing field of no price caps" to begin with and in this way, any concerns about price cap removals for .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO can be addressed squarely in comparison with .NET and with reference to the ALAC's 2017 comment. Given that we don't seem to be offering comments to the inclusion of some RPMs.

2. In any case, the draft starts with "Background" but doesn't indicate where that backgrounder ends and where the present comment begins.

3. Related to the point about standardizing RAs as being a good approach, it be useful to draw attention to the use of Addendums as the controlled means for handling necessary variations.

4. Would it not be incumbent on At-Large to also support (or least comment on) regularizing the inclusion of PICs in these RA renewals (if any)?

5. As for UA, it's not clear (to me at least) what we want all ROs to do about it at this point. Given community interest on UA has increased further in recent meetings, actual responsibilities might be better framed in due course. So, it may be prudent to tackle the inclusion of UA into the base Registry Agreement by amending Specification 6, or possibly by way of a consensus policy addition in Specification 1, at a later date.

Justine

(my apologies for being late to the "party")

-----

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 04:15, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org <mailto:evin.erdogdu@icann.org>> wrote:

Thank you Greg; this draft ALAC Statement on the 4 Registry Agreement Public Comments is posted to each workspace, for comment:

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .biz Registry Agreement <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...>

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .asia Registry Agreement <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...>

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...>

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .info Registry Agreement <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...>

Kind Regards,

Evin

*From: *GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org <mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:44 PM *To: *CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org>>, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org <mailto:evin.erdogdu@icann.org>>, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> *Subject: *[GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Fwd: FW: Draft Comment on RA Renewals

*Please see attached.*

--

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 _______________________________________________ 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 [atlarge-lists.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.o...>

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 <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 [atlarge-lists.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.o...>

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 <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________

registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

--

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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

Good evening: The most essential point is to maintain that ICANN is the default. backstop, responsible for the conditions of competition in the DNS. The question as to whether PIR (and other legacy TLD Registries) and ICANN respect this principle in practice is secondary to the necessity to recognise and implement, when necessary, ICANN's responsibility. CW PS: N.B. Prices for Renewals will become more sensitive than prices for initial registrations of SLDs. Initial Registrations: Competition may apply if alternative names are available. Renewals: The Registry normally holds a monopoly, which must be overseen by a regulator, in this case, i.e. ICANN.

El 29 de abril de 2019 a las 19:27 Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> escribió:

Hi Holly. It is not too late. We have an extension till May 2. I think a lot of people are agreeing with your concerns.

Marita

On 4/29/2019 8:29 AM, Holly Raiche wrote:

> > Greg

...

I fear it is almost too late, but I will repeat what I said on the CPWG: .ORG is special and if we don’t comment on the others, or if comments on .ASIA are made separately, we should, at least, comment on .ORG which is for international non-profits - in the end user interest. And to make a point that was made in the conversation, monitoring will not help; once a contract is signed, arrangements are made based upon that contract, so undoing those arrangements because a review says they aren’t operating as they should would be nigh on impossible.

Holly

> > > On Apr 29, 2019, at 3:58 PM, Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org > wrote:

...

Siva,

I don’t disagree with you. ISOC’s mission is much broader than ICANN, much less At-Large. I am as trying to say that At-Large should view ISOC with a certain kinship, based on shared values and support for priorities that ultimately benefit the end-users — the Internet is for everyone!

But the broad spectrum of activities and priorities that ISOC has goes far beyond At-Large’s “band.”

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 1:33 AM sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet@gmail.com mailto:6.internet@gmail.com > wrote:

> > > >

...

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 10:44 AM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org > wrote:

> > > > > I would be happy, Marita, to beef up the last line of the comment and make that aspect more substantial generally! Please send your editorial suggestions. As for what ICANN should do, one possibility is that ICANN reserves the right to roll back price increases, in whole or in part, if the price hikes are abusive or discriminatory.

...

All, I still hope that there is room for a comment here. It would be particularly unfortunate if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal. Roberto’s email encapsulates many of the reasons why. I look at ISOC as almost

> > > >

> > > > > a sister organization of At-Large.

...

> > > >

No. Please don't equate ISOC with one Constituency of ICANN. Rather, ISOC's mission is larger than the DNS. While ICANN perceives limitations in it's mission, ISOC's policies and programs span way beyond, and what ISOC does results in what is good for the DNS.

> > > > > As Roberto points out, ISOC works to accomplish many goals that it shares with At-Large. ISOC also supports the IETF and even provides its corporate “home.” PIR runs on similar principles. PIR is not a run of the mill commercial registry. In many ways, it was put into business by ISOC. Yet the essence of the concerted campaign against .ORG is that PIR can’t be trusted to abstain from massive price increases, that ISOC could and possibly would push it to do so, and that ISOC is a parasitical organization sucking money out of other non-profits. I feel like we would be throwing ISOC under the bus if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal in particular. [Disclosure: I am the President & Chair of an At Large Structure that is also an ISOC Chapter, ISOC-NY.]

...

Originally, my draft dealt only with .org. We could just go back to that focus. We can leave a general discussion of price caps to one side if we don’t expand this to .biz and .info (and .asia doesn’t have price caps now).

Based on the discussions we had, I aimed to limit the comment to the concrete issues raised by the agreement rather than go beyond the agreement to some of the broader registry issues. But that’s a question of approach and I’m fine with a broader statement. Alternatively, we could decide not to comment on .biz and .info at all, limit the current statement to .org, and put in a brief UA statement for .asia. But first we would have to get any drafts, revisions, etc. out on the table so we can see what we’re dealing with.

Even asking for an extension is a double-edged sword, since that keeps the doors open for more of the cut-and-paste comments that have been filed in opposition to these renewals.

Best regards,

Greg

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 2:34 AM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net > wrote:

> > > > > >

...

I am reading powerful arguments on both sides of this issue and then reading Greg's proposed comment again. In the particular case of .org, and should we decide to go in the direction that Greg has mapped, would it be possible to beef up the last line. It seems like a throw away but it could be a good bridge between the opposing points of view. The comment asks that ICANN "monitor" future price increases and any market responses to those increases. What should ICANN do if it decides the increases are unwarranted?

@Christopher -- eh bien, le poisson est encore vivant !!

Marita

On 4/26/2019 5:41 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:

> > > > > > > Justine, > > Thank you for your kind words and helpful comments. > > Unfortunately, the “party” got rained out. The CPWG decided not to approve this statement, whether it covers all the renewals or is limited to .ORG. So nothing is being sent to the ALAC for their consideration. I think it’s a good statement, and it would be made better with your suggestions. I am considering revising this draft, cutting the subject back to .ORG and submitting it individually. Also, circulating it for others to submit — either individually or with multiple signatures. > > In particular, I am concerned there are a number of comments being made that tend to denigrate PIR and ISOC. This is something I would like to counter. [Full disclosure: I am the President of ISOC-NY (an At-Large Structure) and participate here in that capacity. However, I have not yet asked the ISOC-NY Board to consider endorsing this statement, so I am discussing it here in my individual capacity.]. I honestly think much of what has been said about PIR and ISOC has been untrue or exaggerated and fails to to give credit to ISOC for its mission and unique place in the internet ecosystem. > > I believe that PIR was hoping for a comment along the lines of our first draft (which I believe they saw on our site) or our second draft. I’m not comfortable leaving PIR and ISOC to be “thrown under the bus” by ill-informed and prejudicial comments. If ALAC will not comment (or more precisely, if the CPWG wont send ALAC a draft comment for their consideration), then it behooves those who support this statement to submit it or use it as a basis for their own comments. > > Best regards, > > Greg > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:02 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks to Greg Shatan for the 24 April draft statement. > > > > My comments / suggestion are as follows:- > > > > 1. I wonder if it might be better to prepare (and submit) 2 statements instead of a consolidated one ie. one to address .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO and another for .ASIA.. This is because .ASIA had a "different playing field of no price caps" to begin with and in this way, any concerns about price cap removals for .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO can be addressed squarely in comparison with .NET and with reference to the ALAC's 2017 comment. Given that we don't seem to be offering comments to the inclusion of some RPMs. > > > > 2. In any case, the draft starts with "Background" but doesn't indicate where that backgrounder ends and where the present comment begins. > > > > 3. Related to the point about standardizing RAs as being a good approach, it be useful to draw attention to the use of Addendums as the controlled means for handling necessary variations. > > > > 4. Would it not be incumbent on At-Large to also support (or least comment on) regularizing the inclusion of PICs in these RA renewals (if any)? > > > > 5. As for UA, it's not clear (to me at least) what we want all ROs to do about it at this point. Given community interest on UA has increased further in recent meetings, actual responsibilities might be better framed in due course. So, it may be prudent to tackle the inclusion of UA into the base Registry Agreement by amending Specification 6, or possibly by way of a consensus policy addition in Specification 1, at a later date. > > > > Justine > > (my apologies for being late to the "party") > > > > ----- > > > > > > On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 04:15, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org mailto:evin.erdogdu@icann.org > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Greg; this draft ALAC Statement on the 4 Registry Agreement Public Comments is posted to each workspace, for comment: > > > > > > > > > > > > At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .biz Registry Agreement https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop... > > > > > > At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .asia Registry Agreement https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop... > > > > > > At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop... > > > > > > At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .info Registry Agreement https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop... > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > Evin > > > > > > > > > > > > From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org > on behalf of Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org > > > > Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:44 PM > > > To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org mailto:cpwg@icann.org >, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org mailto:evin.erdogdu@icann.org >, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org > > > > Subject: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Fwd: FW: Draft Comment on RA Renewals > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please see attached. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 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 mailto:CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________

> > > >

> > > > > registration-issues-wg mailing list

...

registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

> > > >

> > > --

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 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

In the interests brokering some kind of comprise, I take up Greg's offer to make a suggestion on beefing up the last sentence of his proposal re: ICANN monitoring the impact of price increases. I would suggest retaining the price caps but raising them slightly and then have a periodic review that could either raise or lower the caps. e.g. price cap raised to 12% (15?) and reviewed after 5 )10?) years. That would make everybody equally unhappy. Good political compromise. My second choice would be Greg's suggestion that ICANN reserve the right to roll back price increases deemed to be abusive -- but rolling back price increases would be really controversial if it ever came to pass. In addition, I would limit the statement to .org and add the comment already put forward by Maureen re: .asia. I have not seen any strong arguments for retaining price caps on .biz .info. I think throwing all these thing together in one pot has been disingenuous. I realize the goal was standardization but the timing seems to be wrong. Marita On 4/29/2019 7:14 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:

I would be happy, Marita, to beef up the last line of the comment and make that aspect more substantial generally!   Please send your editorial suggestions.  As for what ICANN should do, one possibility is that ICANN reserves the right to roll back price increases, in whole or in part, if the price hikes are abusive or discriminatory.

All, I still hope that there is room for a comment here.  It would be particularly unfortunate if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal.  Roberto’s email encapsulates many of the reasons why.  I look at ISOC as almost a sister organization of At-Large.  As Roberto points out, ISOC works to accomplish many goals that it shares with At-Large.  ISOC also supports the IETF and even provides its corporate “home.”   PIR runs on similar principles.  PIR is not a run of the mill commercial registry.  In many ways, it was put into business by ISOC.  Yet the essence of the concerted campaign against .ORG is that PIR can’t be trusted to abstain from massive price increases, that ISOC could and possibly would push it to do so, and that ISOC is a parasitical organization sucking money out of other non-profits. I feel like we would be throwing ISOC under the bus if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal in particular.  [Disclosure: I am the President & Chair of an At Large Structure that is also an ISOC Chapter, ISOC-NY.]

Originally, my draft dealt only with .org. We could just go back to that focus.  We can leave a general discussion of price caps to one side if we don’t expand this to .biz and .info (and .asia doesn’t have price caps now).

Based on the discussions we had, I aimed to limit the comment to the concrete issues raised by the agreement rather than go beyond the agreement to some of the broader registry issues.  But that’s a question of approach and I’m fine with a broader statement. Alternatively, we could decide not to comment on .biz and .info at all, limit the current statement to .org, and put in a brief UA statement for .asia.   But first we would have to get any drafts, revisions, etc. out on the table so we can see what we’re dealing with.

Even asking for an extension is a double-edged sword, since that keeps the doors open for more of the cut-and-paste comments that have been filed in opposition to these renewals.

Best regards,

Greg

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 2:34 AM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote:

I am reading powerful arguments on both sides of this issue and then reading Greg's proposed comment again. In the particular case of .org, and should we decide to go in the direction that Greg has mapped, would it be possible to beef up the last line. It seems like a throw away but it could be a good bridge between the opposing points of view. The comment asks that ICANN "monitor" future price increases and any market responses to those increases. What should ICANN do if it decides the increases are unwarranted?

@Christopher -- eh bien, le poisson est encore vivant !!

Marita

On 4/26/2019 5:41 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:

...

Justine,

Thank you for your kind words and helpful comments.

Unfortunately, the “party” got rained out.  The CPWG decided not to approve this statement, whether it covers all the renewals or is limited to .ORG.  So nothing is being sent to the ALAC for their consideration. I think it’s a good statement, and it would be made better with your suggestions.  I am considering revising this draft, cutting the subject back to .ORG and submitting it individually.  Also, circulating it for others to submit — either individually or with multiple signatures.

In particular, I am concerned there are a number of comments being made that tend to denigrate PIR and ISOC.  This is something I would like to counter.  [Full disclosure: I am the President of ISOC-NY (an At-Large Structure) and participate here in that capacity.  However, I have not yet asked the ISOC-NY Board to consider endorsing this statement, so I am discussing it here in my individual capacity.]. I honestly think much of what has been said about PIR and ISOC has been untrue or exaggerated and fails to to give credit to ISOC for its mission and unique place in the internet ecosystem.

I believe that PIR was hoping for a comment along the lines of our first draft (which I believe they saw on our site) or our second draft.  I’m not comfortable leaving PIR and ISOC to be “thrown under the bus” by ill-informed and prejudicial comments.  If ALAC will not comment (or more precisely, if the CPWG wont send ALAC a draft comment for their consideration), then it behooves those who support this statement to submit it or use it as a basis for their own comments.

Best regards,

Greg

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:02 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com <mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>> wrote:

Thanks to Greg Shatan for the 24 April draft statement.

My comments / suggestion are as follows:-

1. I wonder if it might be better to prepare (and submit) 2 statements instead of a consolidated one ie. one to address .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO and another for .ASIA.. This is because .ASIA had a "different playing field of no price caps" to begin with and in this way, any concerns about price cap removals for .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO can be addressed squarely in comparison with .NET and with reference to the ALAC's 2017 comment. Given that we don't seem to be offering comments to the inclusion of some RPMs.

2. In any case, the draft starts with "Background" but doesn't indicate where that backgrounder ends and where the present comment begins.

3. Related to the point about standardizing RAs as being a good approach, it be useful to draw attention to the use of Addendums as the controlled means for handling necessary variations.

4. Would it not be incumbent on At-Large to also support (or least comment on) regularizing the inclusion of PICs in these RA renewals (if any)?

5. As for UA, it's not clear (to me at least) what we want all ROs to do about it at this point. Given community interest on UA has increased further in recent meetings, actual responsibilities might be better framed in due course. So, it may be prudent to tackle the inclusion of UA into the base Registry Agreement by amending Specification 6, or possibly by way of a consensus policy addition in Specification 1, at a later date.

Justine (my apologies for being late to the "party")

-----

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 04:15, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org <mailto:evin.erdogdu@icann.org>> wrote:

Thank you Greg; this draft ALAC Statement on the 4 Registry Agreement Public Comments is posted to each workspace, for comment:

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .biz Registry Agreement <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...>

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .asia Registry Agreement <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...>

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...>

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .info Registry Agreement <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...>

Kind Regards,

Evin

*From: *GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org <mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org>> *Date: *Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:44 PM *To: *CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org>>, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org <mailto:evin.erdogdu@icann.org>>, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> *Subject: *[GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Fwd: FW: Draft Comment on RA Renewals

*Please see attached.*

--

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 _______________________________________________ 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 <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"/

I don't think the matter is closed with respect to whether or not At-large was submitting a comment. I believe the e-mail list and the calls function together, not independently from each other. Not everyone can always make the calls. And many prefer to put their thoughts down on the list. So, yes, tomorrow on our call, we will have a lot more information and much better idea where our community stands as the discussion continues Marita On 4/29/2019 2:50 PM, George Kirikos wrote:

We already agreed on last week's call that folks can submit individual comments, and At-Large wouldn't be submitting a comment. I disagree with the attempt to relitigate that issue. And Jonathan Zuck said we should table the email discussion, see:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2019-April/001099.html

yet I see more and more folks (including Jonathan himself) making new arguments by email:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2019-April/001116.html

which I obviously disagree with (as do the thousands of individuals and organizations who've actually submitted comments already).

It's not as though ISOC hasn't been "heard" -- they were a **party** to the negotiations with ICANN (given their ownership of PIR). Their views are already known.

If this was a .com renewal agreement open for public comment, Verisign wouldn't be commenting on it, obviously.

See you on tomorrow's call.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 1:14 AM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote:

...

I would be happy, Marita, to beef up the last line of the comment and make that aspect more substantial generally! Please send your editorial suggestions. As for what ICANN should do, one possibility is that ICANN reserves the right to roll back price increases, in whole or in part, if the price hikes are abusive or discriminatory.

All, I still hope that there is room for a comment here. It would be particularly unfortunate if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal. Roberto’s email encapsulates many of the reasons why. I look at ISOC as almost a sister organization of At-Large. As Roberto points out, ISOC works to accomplish many goals that it shares with At-Large. ISOC also supports the IETF and even provides its corporate “home.” PIR runs on similar principles. PIR is not a run of the mill commercial registry. In many ways, it was put into business by ISOC. Yet the essence of the concerted campaign against .ORG is that PIR can’t be trusted to abstain from massive price increases, that ISOC could and possibly would push it to do so, and that ISOC is a parasitical organization sucking money out of other non-profits. I feel like we would be throwing ISOC under the bus if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal in particular. [Disclosure: I am the President & Chair of an At Large Structure that is also an ISOC Chapter, ISOC-NY.]

Originally, my draft dealt only with .org. We could just go back to that focus. We can leave a general discussion of price caps to one side if we don’t expand this to .biz and .info (and .asia doesn’t have price caps now).

Based on the discussions we had, I aimed to limit the comment to the concrete issues raised by the agreement rather than go beyond the agreement to some of the broader registry issues. But that’s a question of approach and I’m fine with a broader statement. Alternatively, we could decide not to comment on .biz and .info at all, limit the current statement to .org, and put in a brief UA statement for .asia. But first we would have to get any drafts, revisions, etc. out on the table so we can see what we’re dealing with.

Even asking for an extension is a double-edged sword, since that keeps the doors open for more of the cut-and-paste comments that have been filed in opposition to these renewals.

Best regards,

Greg

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 2:34 AM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:

...

I am reading powerful arguments on both sides of this issue and then reading Greg's proposed comment again. In the particular case of .org, and should we decide to go in the direction that Greg has mapped, would it be possible to beef up the last line. It seems like a throw away but it could be a good bridge between the opposing points of view. The comment asks that ICANN "monitor" future price increases and any market responses to those increases. What should ICANN do if it decides the increases are unwarranted?

@Christopher -- eh bien, le poisson est encore vivant !!

Marita

On 4/26/2019 5:41 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:

Justine,

Thank you for your kind words and helpful comments.

Unfortunately, the “party” got rained out. The CPWG decided not to approve this statement, whether it covers all the renewals or is limited to .ORG. So nothing is being sent to the ALAC for their consideration. I think it’s a good statement, and it would be made better with your suggestions. I am considering revising this draft, cutting the subject back to .ORG and submitting it individually. Also, circulating it for others to submit — either individually or with multiple signatures.

In particular, I am concerned there are a number of comments being made that tend to denigrate PIR and ISOC. This is something I would like to counter. [Full disclosure: I am the President of ISOC-NY (an At-Large Structure) and participate here in that capacity. However, I have not yet asked the ISOC-NY Board to consider endorsing this statement, so I am discussing it here in my individual capacity.]. I honestly think much of what has been said about PIR and ISOC has been untrue or exaggerated and fails to to give credit to ISOC for its mission and unique place in the internet ecosystem.

I believe that PIR was hoping for a comment along the lines of our first draft (which I believe they saw on our site) or our second draft. I’m not comfortable leaving PIR and ISOC to be “thrown under the bus” by ill-informed and prejudicial comments. If ALAC will not comment (or more precisely, if the CPWG wont send ALAC a draft comment for their consideration), then it behooves those who support this statement to submit it or use it as a basis for their own comments.

Best regards,

Greg

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:02 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Thanks to Greg Shatan for the 24 April draft statement.

My comments / suggestion are as follows:-

1. I wonder if it might be better to prepare (and submit) 2 statements instead of a consolidated one ie. one to address .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO and another for .ASIA.. This is because .ASIA had a "different playing field of no price caps" to begin with and in this way, any concerns about price cap removals for .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO can be addressed squarely in comparison with .NET and with reference to the ALAC's 2017 comment. Given that we don't seem to be offering comments to the inclusion of some RPMs.

2. In any case, the draft starts with "Background" but doesn't indicate where that backgrounder ends and where the present comment begins.

3. Related to the point about standardizing RAs as being a good approach, it be useful to draw attention to the use of Addendums as the controlled means for handling necessary variations.

4. Would it not be incumbent on At-Large to also support (or least comment on) regularizing the inclusion of PICs in these RA renewals (if any)?

5. As for UA, it's not clear (to me at least) what we want all ROs to do about it at this point. Given community interest on UA has increased further in recent meetings, actual responsibilities might be better framed in due course. So, it may be prudent to tackle the inclusion of UA into the base Registry Agreement by amending Specification 6, or possibly by way of a consensus policy addition in Specification 1, at a later date.

Justine (my apologies for being late to the "party")

-----

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 04:15, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org> wrote:

...

Thank you Greg; this draft ALAC Statement on the 4 Registry Agreement Public Comments is posted to each workspace, for comment:

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .biz Registry Agreement

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .asia Registry Agreement

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .info Registry Agreement

Kind Regards,

Evin

From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:44 PM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org>, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Subject: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Fwd: FW: Draft Comment on RA Renewals

Please see attached.

--

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 _______________________________________________ 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

_______________________________________________ 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

---

CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

Thanks Alan. I think at this point the real issue is that we won't achieve timely consensus on this issue. It's fine to continue to hash it back and forth in the list but we're no closer to a unified position. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 12:57:07 PM To: CPWG Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Fwd: FW: Draft Comment on RA Renewals In my mind, the issue, particularly for .ORG, is two-fold 1. ICANN's determination to have uniform Registry Agreements. This is reasonable from a purely administrative point of view, despite it not being followed for .NET. But I will point out that this is an administrative and contract issue and has never, in my recollection, been subject to a community decision. ANd indeed the .NET example demonstrates that it is not an absolute. 2. .ORG is targetted (if not limited) to organizations that generally are in the public interest, and thus of interest to At-Large. There are somewhat over 10 million of them and it is reasonable to presume that many million of them are public-service type organizations that have registered under .ORG based on its perceived focus area but may well have presumed that the price they paid to start would not increase radically. PIR has regularly raised prices in the past. Although they have not raised prices recently, they now have a new CEO and a new Chair of the Board. Given that, past behaviour is NOT necessarily a predictor of future actions. Alan At 29/04/2019 09:19 AM, Marita Moll wrote: I don't think the matter is closed with respect to whether or not At-large was submitting a comment. I believe the e-mail list and the calls function together, not independently from each other. Not everyone can always make the calls. And many prefer to put their thoughts down on the list. So, yes, tomorrow on our call, we will have a lot more information and much better idea where our community stands as the discussion continues Marita On 4/29/2019 2:50 PM, George Kirikos wrote: We already agreed on last week's call that folks can submit individual comments, and At-Large wouldn't be submitting a comment. I disagree with the attempt to relitigate that issue. And Jonathan Zuck said we should table the email discussion, see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2019-April/001099.html yet I see more and more folks (including Jonathan himself) making new arguments by email: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2019-April/001116.html which I obviously disagree with (as do the thousands of individuals and organizations who've actually submitted comments already). It's not as though ISOC hasn't been "heard" -- they were a **party** to the negotiations with ICANN (given their ownership of PIR). Their views are already known. If this was a .com renewal agreement open for public comment, Verisign wouldn't be commenting on it, obviously. See you on tomorrow's call. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 1:14 AM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org><mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote: I would be happy, Marita, to beef up the last line of the comment and make that aspect more substantial generally! Please send your editorial suggestions. As for what ICANN should do, one possibility is that ICANN reserves the right to roll back price increases, in whole or in part, if the price hikes are abusive or discriminatory. All, I still hope that there is room for a comment here. It would be particularly unfortunate if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal. Roberto’s email encapsulates many of the reasons why. I look at ISOC as almost a sister organization of At-Large. As Roberto points out, ISOC works to accomplish many goals that it shares with At-Large. ISOC also supports the IETF and even provides its corporate “home.” PIR runs on similar principles. PIR is not a run of the mill commercial registry. In many ways, it was put into business by ISOC. Yet the essence of the concerted campaign against .ORG is that PIR can’t be trusted to abstain from massive price increases, that ISOC could and possibly would push it to do so, and that ISOC is a parasitical organization sucking money out of other non-profits. I feel like we would be throwing ISOC under the bus if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal in particular. [Disclosure: I am the President & Chair of an At Large Structure that is also an ISOC Chapter, ISOC-NY.] Originally, my draft dealt only with .org. We could just go back to that focus. We can leave a general discussion of price caps to one side if we don’t expand this to .biz and .info (and .asia doesn’t have price caps now). Based on the discussions we had, I aimed to limit the comment to the concrete issues raised by the agreement rather than go beyond the agreement to some of the broader registry issues. But that’s a question of approach and I’m fine with a broader statement. Alternatively, we could decide not to comment on .biz and .info at all, limit the current statement to .org, and put in a brief UA statement for .asia. But first we would have to get any drafts, revisions, etc. out on the table so we can see what we’re dealing with. Even asking for an extension is a double-edged sword, since that keeps the doors open for more of the cut-and-paste comments that have been filed in opposition to these renewals. Best regards, Greg On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 2:34 AM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote: I am reading powerful arguments on both sides of this issue and then reading Greg's proposed comment again. In the particular case of .org, and should we decide to go in the direction that Greg has mapped, would it be possible to beef up the last line. It seems like a throw away but it could be a good bridge between the opposing points of view. The comment asks that ICANN "monitor" future price increases and any market responses to those increases. What should ICANN do if it decides the increases are unwarranted? @Christopher -- eh bien, le poisson est encore vivant !! Marita On 4/26/2019 5:41 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: Justine, Thank you for your kind words and helpful comments. Unfortunately, the “party” got rained out. The CPWG decided not to approve this statement, whether it covers all the renewals or is limited to .ORG. So nothing is being sent to the ALAC for their consideration. I think it’s a good statement, and it would be made better with your suggestions. I am considering revising this draft, cutting the subject back to .ORG and submitting it individually. Also, circulating it for others to submit � either individually or with multiple signatures. In particular, I am concerned there are a number of comments being made that tend to denigrate PIR and ISOC. This is something I would like to counter. [Full disclosure: I am the President of ISOC-NY (an At-Large Structure) and participate here in that capacity. However, I have not yet asked the ISOC-NY Board to consider endorsing this statement, so I am discussing it here in my individual capacity.]. I honestly think much of what has been said about PIR and ISOC has been untrue or exaggerated and fails to to give credit to ISOC for its mission and unique place in the internet ecosystem. I believe that PIR was hoping for a comment along the lines of our first draft (which I believe they saw on our site) or our second draft. I’m not comfortable leaving PIR and ISOC to be “thrown under the bus” by ill-informed and prejudicial comments. If ALAC will not comment (or more precisely, if the CPWG wont send ALAC a draft comment for their consideration), then it behooves those who support this statement to submit it or use it as a basis for their own comments. Best regards, Greg On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:02 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com><mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks to Greg Shatan for the 24 April draft statement. My comments / suggestion are as follows:- 1. I wonder if it might be better to prepare (and submit) 2 statements instead of a consolidated one ie. one to address .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO and another for .ASIA.. This is because .ASIA had a "different playing field of no price caps" to begin with and in this way, any concerns about price cap removals for .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO can be addressed squarely in comparison with .NET and with reference to the ALAC's 2017 comment. Given that we don't seem to be offering comments to the inclusion of some RPMs. 2. In any case, the draft starts with "Background" but doesn't indicate where that backgrounder ends and where the present comment begins. 3. Related to the point about standardizing RAs as being a good approach, it be useful to draw attention to the use of Addendums as the controlled means for handling necessary variations. 4. Would it not be incumbent on At-Large to also support (or least comment on) regularizing the inclusion of PICs in these RA renewals (if any)? 5. As for UA, it's not clear (to me at least) what we want all ROs to do about it at this point. Given community interest on UA has increased further in recent meetings, actual responsibilities might be better framed in due course. So, it may be prudent to tackle the inclusion of UA into the base Registry Agreement by amending Specification 6, or possibly by way of a consensus policy addition in Specification 1, at a later date. Justine (my apologies for being late to the "party") ----- On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 04:15, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org><mailto:evin.erdogdu@icann.org> wrote: Thank you Greg; this draft ALAC Statement on the 4 Registry Agreement Public Comments is posted to each workspace, for comment: At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .biz Registry Agreement At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .asia Registry Agreement At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .info Registry Agreement Kind Regards, Evin From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org><mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:44 PM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org><mailto:cpwg@icann.org>, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org><mailto:evin.erdogdu@icann.org> , Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org><mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Subject: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Fwd: FW: Draft Comment on RA Renewals Please see attached. -- 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 _______________________________________________ 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<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<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 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

Totally agree Alan, changing of these two relevant posts may change totally the former approach focused on real public interest Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPad Sorry for any typos and misspellings

On 29 Apr 2019, at 13:57, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

In my mind, the issue, particularly for .ORG, is two-fold

1. ICANN's determination to have uniform Registry Agreements. This is reasonable from a purely administrative point of view, despite it not being followed for .NET. But I will point out that this is an administrative and contract issue and has never, in my recollection, been subject to a community decision. ANd indeed the .NET example demonstrates that it is not an absolute.

2. .ORG is targetted (if not limited) to organizations that generally are in the public interest, and thus of interest to At-Large. There are somewhat over 10 million of them and it is reasonable to presume that many million of them are public-service type organizations that have registered under .ORG based on its perceived focus area but may well have presumed that the price they paid to start would not increase radically.

PIR has regularly raised prices in the past. Although they have not raised prices recently, they now have a new CEO and a new Chair of the Board. Given that, past behaviour is NOT necessarily a predictor of future actions.

Alan

At 29/04/2019 09:19 AM, Marita Moll wrote:

...

I don't think the matter is closed with respect to whether or not At-large was submitting a comment. I believe the e-mail list and the calls function together, not independently from each other. Not everyone can always make the calls. And many prefer to put their thoughts down on the list.

So, yes, tomorrow on our call, we will have a lot more information and much better idea where our community stands as the discussion continues

Marita

...

On 4/29/2019 2:50 PM, George Kirikos wrote:

We already agreed on last week's call that folks can submit individual comments, and At-Large wouldn't be submitting a comment. I disagree with the attempt to relitigate that issue. And Jonathan Zuck said we should table the email discussion, see:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2019-April/001099.html

yet I see more and more folks (including Jonathan himself) making new arguments by email:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2019-April/001116.html

which I obviously disagree with (as do the thousands of individuals and organizations who've actually submitted comments already).

It's not as though ISOC hasn't been "heard" -- they were a **party** to the negotiations with ICANN (given their ownership of PIR). Their views are already known.

If this was a .com renewal agreement open for public comment, Verisign wouldn't be commenting on it, obviously.

See you on tomorrow's call.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 1:14 AM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote:

...

I would be happy, Marita, to beef up the last line of the comment and make that aspect more substantial generally! Please send your editorial suggestions. As for what ICANN should do, one possibility is that ICANN reserves the right to roll back price increases, in whole or in part, if the price hikes are abusive or discriminatory.

All, I still hope that there is room for a comment here. It would be particularly unfortunate if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal. Roberto’s email encapsulates many of the reasons why. I look at ISOC as almost a sister organization of At-Large. As Roberto points out, ISOC works to accomplish many goals that it shares with At-Large. ISOC also supports the IETF and even provides its corporate “home.” PIR runs on similar principles. PIR is not a run of the mill commercial registry. In many ways, it was put into business by ISOC. Yet the essence of the concerted campaign against .ORG is that PIR can’t be trusted to abstain from massive price increases, that ISOC could and possibly would push it to do so, and that ISOC is a parasitical organization sucking money out of other non-profits. I feel like we would be throwing ISOC under the bus if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal in particular. [Disclosure: I am the President & Chair of an At Large Structure that is also an ISOC Chapter, ISOC-NY.]

Originally, my draft dealt only with .org. We could just go back to that focus. We can leave a general discussion of price caps to one side if we don’t expand this to .biz and .info (and .asia doesn’t have price caps now).

Based on the discussions we had, I aimed to limit the comment to the concrete issues raised by the agreement rather than go beyond the agreement to some of the broader registry issues. But that’s a question of approach and I’m fine with a broader statement. Alternatively, we could decide not to comment on .biz and .info at all, limit the current statement to .org, and put in a brief UA statement for .asia. But first we would have to get any drafts, revisions, etc. out on the table so we can see what we’re dealing with.

Even asking for an extension is a double-edged sword, since that keeps the doors open for more of the cut-and-paste comments that have been filed in opposition to these renewals.

Best regards,

Greg

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 2:34 AM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:

...

I am reading powerful arguments on both sides of this issue and then reading Greg's proposed comment again. In the particular case of .org, and should we decide to go in the direction that Greg has mapped, would it be possible to beef up the last line. It seems like a throw away but it could be a good bridge between the opposing points of view. The comment asks that ICANN "monitor" future price increases and any market responses to those increases. What should ICANN do if it decides the increases are unwarranted?

@Christopher -- eh bien, le poisson est encore vivant !!

Marita

On 4/26/2019 5:41 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:

Justine,

Thank you for your kind words and helpful comments.

Unfortunately, the “party” got rained out. The CPWG decided not to approve this statement, whether it covers all the renewals or is limited to .ORG. So nothing is being sent to the ALAC for their consideration. I think it’s a good statement, and it would be made better with your suggestions. I am considering revising this draft, cutting the subject back to .ORG and submitting it individually. Also, circulating it for others to submit — either individually or with multiple signatures.

In particular, I am concerned there are a number of comments being made that tend to denigrate PIR and ISOC. This is something I would like to counter. [Full disclosure: I am the President of ISOC-NY (an At-Large Structure) and participate here in that capacity. However, I have not yet asked the ISOC-NY Board to consider endorsing this statement, so I am discussing it here in my individual capacity.]. I honestly think much of what has been said about PIR and ISOC has been untrue or exaggerated and fails to to give credit to ISOC for its mission and unique place in the internet ecosystem.

I believe that PIR was hoping for a comment along the lines of our first draft (which I believe they saw on our site) or our second draft. I’m not comfortable leaving PIR and ISOC to be “thrown under the bus” by ill-informed and prejudicial comments. If ALAC will not comment (or more precisely, if the CPWG wont send ALAC a draft comment for their consideration), then it behooves those who support this statement to submit it or use it as a basis for their own comments.

Best regards,

Greg

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:02 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Thanks to Greg Shatan for the 24 April draft statement.

My comments / suggestion are as follows:-

1. I wonder if it might be better to prepare (and submit) 2 statements instead of a consolidated one ie. one to address .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO and another for .ASIA.. This is because .ASIA had a "different playing field of no price caps" to begin with and in this way, any concerns about price cap removals for .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO can be addressed squarely in comparison with .NET and with reference to the ALAC's 2017 comment. Given that we don't seem to be offering comments to the inclusion of some RPMs.

2. In any case, the draft starts with "Background" but doesn't indicate where that backgrounder ends and where the present comment begins.

3. Related to the point about standardizing RAs as being a good approach, it be useful to draw attention to the use of Addendums as the controlled means for handling necessary variations.

4. Would it not be incumbent on At-Large to also support (or least comment on) regularizing the inclusion of PICs in these RA renewals (if any)?

5. As for UA, it's not clear (to me at least) what we want all ROs to do about it at this point. Given community interest on UA has increased further in recent meetings, actual responsibilities might be better framed in due course. So, it may be prudent to tackle the inclusion of UA into the base Registry Agreement by amending Specification 6, or possibly by way of a consensus policy addition in Specification 1, at a later date.

Justine (my apologies for being late to the "party")

-----

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 04:15, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org> wrote: > > Thank you Greg; this draft ALAC Statement on the 4 Registry Agreement > Public Comments is posted to each workspace, for comment: > > > > At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .biz Registry Agreement > > At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .asia Registry Agreement > > At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement > > At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .info Registry Agreement > > > > Kind Regards, > > Evin > > > > From: GTLD-WG > > <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Greg > Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> > Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:44 PM > To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>, Evin > Erdogdu > <evin.erdogdu@icann.org> > , Jonathan Zuck > > <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> > Subject: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Fwd: FW: Draft Comment on RA Renewals > > > > > > Please see attached. > > -- > > 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 _______________________________________________ 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

_______________________________________________ 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

_______________________________________________ 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

---

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

"Thousands of comments" Coming off of the FCC astroturfing commenting debacle and soberly guessing that there is a whole community heavily invested in not increasing costs, I would caution that weight of numbers is not telling, especially in a convenience sample. Sent from my Pixel 3XL John Laprise, Ph.D. On Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 7:52 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:

We already agreed on last week's call that folks can submit individual comments, and At-Large wouldn't be submitting a comment. I disagree with the attempt to relitigate that issue. And Jonathan Zuck said we should table the email discussion, see:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2019-April/001099.html

yet I see more and more folks (including Jonathan himself) making new arguments by email:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2019-April/001116.html

which I obviously disagree with (as do the thousands of individuals and organizations who've actually submitted comments already).

It's not as though ISOC hasn't been "heard" -- they were a **party** to the negotiations with ICANN (given their ownership of PIR). Their views are already known.

If this was a .com renewal agreement open for public comment, Verisign wouldn't be commenting on it, obviously.

See you on tomorrow's call.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 1:14 AM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote:

...

I would be happy, Marita, to beef up the last line of the comment and

make that aspect more substantial generally! Please send your editorial suggestions. As for what ICANN should do, one possibility is that ICANN reserves the right to roll back price increases, in whole or in part, if the price hikes are abusive or discriminatory.

...

All, I still hope that there is room for a comment here. It would be

particularly unfortunate if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal. Roberto’s email encapsulates many of the reasons why. I look at ISOC as almost a sister organization of At-Large. As Roberto points out, ISOC works to accomplish many goals that it shares with At-Large. ISOC also supports the IETF and even provides its corporate “home.” PIR runs on similar principles. PIR is not a run of the mill commercial registry. In many ways, it was put into business by ISOC. Yet the essence of the concerted campaign against .ORG is that PIR can’t be trusted to abstain from massive price increases, that ISOC could and possibly would push it to do so, and that ISOC is a parasitical organization sucking money out of other non-profits. I feel like we would be throwing ISOC under the bus if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal in particular. [Disclosure: I am the President & Chair of an At Large Structure that is also an ISOC Chapter, ISOC-NY.]

...

Originally, my draft dealt only with .org. We could just go back to

that focus. We can leave a general discussion of price caps to one side if we don’t expand this to .biz and .info (and .asia doesn’t have price caps now).

...

Based on the discussions we had, I aimed to limit the comment to the

concrete issues raised by the agreement rather than go beyond the agreement to some of the broader registry issues. But that’s a question of approach and I’m fine with a broader statement. Alternatively, we could decide not to comment on .biz and .info at all, limit the current statement to .org, and put in a brief UA statement for .asia. But first we would have to get any drafts, revisions, etc. out on the table so we can see what we’re dealing with.

...

Even asking for an extension is a double-edged sword, since that keeps

the doors open for more of the cut-and-paste comments that have been filed in opposition to these renewals.

...

Best regards,

Greg

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 2:34 AM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:

...

I am reading powerful arguments on both sides of this issue and then

reading Greg's proposed comment again. In the particular case of .org, and should we decide to go in the direction that Greg has mapped, would it be possible to beef up the last line. It seems like a throw away but it could be a good bridge between the opposing points of view. The comment asks that ICANN "monitor" future price increases and any market responses to those increases. What should ICANN do if it decides the increases are unwarranted?

...

...

@Christopher -- eh bien, le poisson est encore vivant !!

Marita

On 4/26/2019 5:41 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:

Justine,

Thank you for your kind words and helpful comments.

Unfortunately, the “party” got rained out. The CPWG decided not to

approve this statement, whether it covers all the renewals or is limited to .ORG. So nothing is being sent to the ALAC for their consideration. I think it’s a good statement, and it would be made better with your suggestions. I am considering revising this draft, cutting the subject back to .ORG and submitting it individually. Also, circulating it for others to submit — either individually or with multiple signatures.

...

In particular, I am concerned there are a number of comments being made

that tend to denigrate PIR and ISOC. This is something I would like to counter. [Full disclosure: I am the President of ISOC-NY (an At-Large Structure) and participate here in that capacity. However, I have not yet asked the ISOC-NY Board to consider endorsing this statement, so I am discussing it here in my individual capacity.]. I honestly think much of what has been said about PIR and ISOC has been untrue or exaggerated and fails to to give credit to ISOC for its mission and unique place in the internet ecosystem.

...

I believe that PIR was hoping for a comment along the lines of our

first draft (which I believe they saw on our site) or our second draft. I’m not comfortable leaving PIR and ISOC to be “thrown under the bus” by ill-informed and prejudicial comments. If ALAC will not comment (or more precisely, if the CPWG wont send ALAC a draft comment for their consideration), then it behooves those who support this statement to submit it or use it as a basis for their own comments.

...

Best regards,

Greg

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:02 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com>

wrote:

...

...

Thanks to Greg Shatan for the 24 April draft statement.

My comments / suggestion are as follows:-

1. I wonder if it might be better to prepare (and submit) 2 statements

instead of a consolidated one ie. one to address .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO and another for .ASIA.. This is because .ASIA had a "different playing field of no price caps" to begin with and in this way, any concerns about price cap removals for .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO can be addressed squarely in comparison with .NET and with reference to the ALAC's 2017 comment. Given that we don't seem to be offering comments to the inclusion of some RPMs.

...

2. In any case, the draft starts with "Background" but doesn't

indicate where that backgrounder ends and where the present comment begins.

...

3. Related to the point about standardizing RAs as being a good

approach, it be useful to draw attention to the use of Addendums as the controlled means for handling necessary variations.

...

4. Would it not be incumbent on At-Large to also support (or least

comment on) regularizing the inclusion of PICs in these RA renewals (if any)?

...

5. As for UA, it's not clear (to me at least) what we want all ROs to

do about it at this point. Given community interest on UA has increased further in recent meetings, actual responsibilities might be better framed in due course. So, it may be prudent to tackle the inclusion of UA into the base Registry Agreement by amending Specification 6, or possibly by way of a consensus policy addition in Specification 1, at a later date.

...

Justine (my apologies for being late to the "party")

-----

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 04:15, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org>

wrote:

...

...

Thank you Greg; this draft ALAC Statement on the 4 Registry Agreement

Public Comments is posted to each workspace, for comment:

...

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .biz Registry Agreement

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .asia Registry Agreement

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement

At-Large Workspace: Proposed Renewal of .info Registry Agreement

Kind Regards,

Evin

From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of

Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org>

...

Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:44 PM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org>, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Subject: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Fwd: FW: Draft Comment on RA Renewals

Please see attached.

--

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 _______________________________________________ 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

_______________________________________________ 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

---

CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg