URGENT: Strategic Plan Comments
Folks, Maureen and Bastien have done a great job with drafting At-large comments on the Strategic Plan but they haven’t received enough feedback. Please take a look and comment by Sunday! Here are the comments: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LHZ56WJUHuqglhsDySKqqLCc_PxvyuwXgCzonwVN... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> Thanks! Jonathan Jonathan Zuck | Executive Director | Innovators Network jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck | [cid:image001.png@01D2AEED.C7EA7800]
Dear Jonathan, Dear Friends and Colleagues : I hav read the draft ALAC response to the ICANN Strategic Plan. I appreciate and commend the work, effort and understanding of the rapporteurs to this effect. Your having requested comments, I would say that there is one paragraph in the draft that I would wish to see reinforced and emphasised. Under : 2. Improve the effectiveness of ICANN’s mulltistakeholder model of governance. I would wish to see a stronger statement that ICANN's credibility as the DNS Regulator requires greater efforts to ensure the balance of interests notably with regard to users and the public interest. In this context, I refer specifically to the comment received by the new gTLD PDP from the Public Interest Community : << 5. In setting up a host of 'procedural changes' that amount to a capture of the New gTLD Process by large incumbent portfolio applicants … This set of self-interested procedural initiatives defy the original goals of the new gTLD process. … These … goals will not be achieved by many of the policies being proposed which appear designed to support the drafters – largely incumbent registries… >> I consider that ALAC should give positive support to the concerns voiced by the Public Interest Community, not least because At Large is the only multistakeholder constituency with the presence and mandate to ensure the balance of interests in the PDP for the users and the public interest. In this context may I recall my previous postings about the essential benchmarks of the public interest in the new gTLD PDP: 1. Incumbent operators should not be allowed to determine the terms and conditions of access to TLDs by new entrants. 2. 'Portfolio' applications should be strongly discouraged, if not banned. 3. The economic rent to a 'Good Name' should accrue to the Registrant(s). They should not be burdened by fees and charges arising, notably, from auctions. The Registry has no business paying for, nor seeking compensation for, artificially excessive costs of registering a new TLD. The costs to Registrants should be moderated in consequence. I would be glad if the above considerations were included in the ALAC response to the Strategic Plan. Could I also say that, otherwise, ALAC may appear - to the outside world - as complicit in a degree of unhealthy collusion among the incumbent operators. This should not go on. Regards to you all Christopher Wilkinson
On 8 Feb 2019, at 16:30, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Folks, Maureen and Bastien have done a great job with drafting At-large comments on the Strategic Plan but they haven’t received enough feedback. Please take a look and comment by Sunday! Here are the comments: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LHZ56WJUHuqglhsDySKqqLCc_PxvyuwXgCzonwVN... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
Thanks! Jonathan
Jonathan Zuck | Executive Director | Innovators Network jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck | <image001.png>
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg>
Thanks Christopher. Interesting comments. I need to hear from others in the group re: support for inclusion. They do enter into details of domain name management that are not necessarily the right call for this type of document. Not comfortable with my own depth of knowledge on these items to make that judgement. Marita On 2/8/2019 1:10 PM, cw@christopherwilkinson.eu wrote:
Dear Jonathan, Dear Friends and Colleagues :
I hav read the draft ALAC response to the ICANN Strategic Plan. I appreciate and commend the work, effort and understanding of the rapporteurs to this effect.
Your having requested comments, I would say that there is one paragraph in the draft that I would wish to see reinforced and emphasised. Under :
*2. Improve the effectiveness of ICANN’s mulltistakeholder model of governance.*
I would wish to see a stronger statement that ICANN's credibility as the DNS Regulator requires greater efforts to ensure the balance of interests notably with regard to users and the public interest. In this context, I refer specifically to the comment received by the new gTLD PDP from the Public Interest Community :
<< 5. In setting up a host of 'procedural changes' that amount to a capture of the New gTLD Process by large incumbent portfolio applicants … This set of self-interested procedural initiatives defy the original goals of the new gTLD process. … These … goals will not be achieved by many of the policies being proposed which appear designed to support the drafters – largely incumbent registries… >>
I consider that ALAC should give positive support to the concerns voiced by the Public Interest Community, not least because At Large is the only multistakeholder constituency with the presence and mandate to ensure the balance of interests in the PDP for the users and the public interest.
In this context may I recall my previous postings about the essential benchmarks of the public interest in the new gTLD PDP:
1. Incumbent operators should not be allowed to determine the terms and conditions of access to TLDs by new entrants.
2. 'Portfolio' applications should be strongly discouraged, if not banned.
3. The economic rent to a 'Good Name' should accrue to the Registrant(s). They should not be burdened by fees and charges arising, notably, from auctions. The Registry has no business paying for, nor seeking compensation for, artificially excessive costs of registering a new TLD. The costs to Registrants should be moderated in consequence.
I would be glad if the above considerations were included in the ALAC response to the Strategic Plan.
Could I also say that, otherwise, ALAC may appear - to the outside world - as complicit in a degree of unhealthy collusion among the incumbent operators. This should not go on.
Regards to you all
Christopher Wilkinson
On 8 Feb 2019, at 16:30, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote:
Folks, Maureen and Bastien have done a great job with drafting At-large comments on the Strategic Plan but they haven’t received enough feedback. Please take a look and comment by Sunday! Here are the comments: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LHZ56WJUHuqglhsDySKqqLCc_PxvyuwXgCzonwVN... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> Thanks! Jonathan Jonathan Zuck *|* Executive Director *|* Innovators Network jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck | <image001.png> _______________________________________________ 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
Hi, Christopher, Regarding the point of "ICANN's credibility as the DNS Regulator", ICANN does not even admit itself as a "regulator", not to say to enhance its credibility as regulator. Thus, I would first propose ICANN to make clear about what exactly ICANN is before enforcing its anything. Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: cw@christopherwilkinson.eu To: Jonathan Zuck ; cpwg@icann.org Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2019 5:10 AM Subject: Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] URGENT: Strategic Plan Comments Dear Jonathan, Dear Friends and Colleagues : I hav read the draft ALAC response to the ICANN Strategic Plan. I appreciate and commend the work, effort and understanding of the rapporteurs to this effect. Your having requested comments, I would say that there is one paragraph in the draft that I would wish to see reinforced and emphasised. Under : 2. Improve the effectiveness of ICANN’s mulltistakeholder model of governance. I would wish to see a stronger statement that ICANN's credibility as the DNS Regulator requires greater efforts to ensure the balance of interests notably with regard to users and the public interest. In this context, I refer specifically to the comment received by the new gTLD PDP from the Public Interest Community : << 5. In setting up a host of 'procedural changes' that amount to a capture of the New gTLD Process by large incumbent portfolio applicants … This set of self-interested procedural initiatives defy the original goals of the new gTLD process. … These … goals will not be achieved by many of the policies being proposed which appear designed to support the drafters – largely incumbent registries… >> I consider that ALAC should give positive support to the concerns voiced by the Public Interest Community, not least because At Large is the only multistakeholder constituency with the presence and mandate to ensure the balance of interests in the PDP for the users and the public interest. In this context may I recall my previous postings about the essential benchmarks of the public interest in the new gTLD PDP: 1. Incumbent operators should not be allowed to determine the terms and conditions of access to TLDs by new entrants. 2. 'Portfolio' applications should be strongly discouraged, if not banned. 3. The economic rent to a 'Good Name' should accrue to the Registrant(s). They should not be burdened by fees and charges arising, notably, from auctions. The Registry has no business paying for, nor seeking compensation for, artificially excessive costs of registering a new TLD. The costs to Registrants should be moderated in consequence. I would be glad if the above considerations were included in the ALAC response to the Strategic Plan. Could I also say that, otherwise, ALAC may appear - to the outside world - as complicit in a degree of unhealthy collusion among the incumbent operators. This should not go on. Regards to you all Christopher Wilkinson On 8 Feb 2019, at 16:30, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote: Folks, Maureen and Bastien have done a great job with drafting At-large comments on the Strategic Plan but they haven’t received enough feedback. Please take a look and comment by Sunday! Here are the comments: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LHZ56WJUHuqglhsDySKqqLCc_PxvyuwXgCzonwVN... [docs.google.com] Thanks! Jonathan Jonathan Zuck | Executive Director | Innovators Network jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck | <image001.png> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
Good evening : Thankyou for these comments. @ Maureen : In my view, the principal and priority issue in ICANN's strategic plan is to maintain the credibility and global acceptability of the multi-stakeholder system. Ensuring that there is a permanent balance in the ICANN decision making processes respecting the public interest, is an essential factor to that effect. In practice ALAC is the only multi-stakeholder entity that is able to achieve that. Otherwise, if ICANN continues to be driven primarily by the interests of incumbent operators, sooner or later the multi-stakeholder model will crack, for lack of international acceptability. Consequently I maintain that the issue of economic balance of interests within the multi-stakeholder community should be up front as a primary strategic objective for ICANN.org and the ICANN Community., supported, indeed demanded by ALAC. @Kalil : Noted ; I am aware of what you say, but it is not correct. Whether we call ICANN a 'regulator' or not, (or something else in another language), I don't care, but the fact is that the power that the ICANN Community and ICANN.org exercise over the allocation of DNS resources and the operators' business models exceeds that of official Regulators in several other sectors. For example, the ITU's powers over spectrum ; the national telecommunications Regulators over mobile phone licenses etc. Consequently,. I maintain my position. Thanks and Regards to you all, CW
On 9 Feb 2019, at 20:06, Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, Christopher,
Regarding the point of "ICANN's credibility as the DNS Regulator", ICANN does not even admit itself as a "regulator", not to say to enhance its credibility as regulator. Thus, I would first propose ICANN to make clear about what exactly ICANN is before enforcing its anything.
Kaili
----- Original Message ----- From:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> To: Jonathan Zuck <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> ; cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2019 5:10 AM Subject: Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] URGENT: Strategic Plan Comments
Dear Jonathan, Dear Friends and Colleagues : I hav read the draft ALAC response to the ICANN Strategic Plan. I appreciate and commend the work, effort and understanding of the rapporteurs to this effect. Your having requested comments, I would say that there is one paragraph in the draft that I would wish to see reinforced and emphasised. Under :
2. Improve the effectiveness of ICANN’s mulltistakeholder model of governance. I would wish to see a stronger statement that ICANN's credibility as the DNS Regulator requires greater efforts to ensure the balance of interests notably with regard to users and the public interest. In this context, I refer specifically to the comment received by the new gTLD PDP from the Public Interest Community : << 5. In setting up a host of 'procedural changes' that amount to a capture of the New gTLD Process by large incumbent portfolio applicants … This set of self-interested procedural initiatives defy the original goals of the new gTLD process. … These … goals will not be achieved by many of the policies being proposed which appear designed to support the drafters – largely incumbent registries… >> I consider that ALAC should give positive support to the concerns voiced by the Public Interest Community, not least because At Large is the only multistakeholder constituency with the presence and mandate to ensure the balance of interests in the PDP for the users and the public interest.
In this context may I recall my previous postings about the essential benchmarks of the public interest in the new gTLD PDP: 1. Incumbent operators should not be allowed to determine the terms and conditions of access to TLDs by new entrants. 2. 'Portfolio' applications should be strongly discouraged, if not banned. 3. The economic rent to a 'Good Name' should accrue to the Registrant(s). They should not be burdened by fees and charges arising, notably, from auctions. The Registry has no business paying for, nor seeking compensation for, artificially excessive costs of registering a new TLD. The costs to Registrants should be moderated in consequence. I would be glad if the above considerations were included in the ALAC response to the Strategic Plan.
Could I also say that, otherwise, ALAC may appear - to the outside world - as complicit in a degree of unhealthy collusion among the incumbent operators. This should not go on.
Regards to you all
Christopher Wilkinson
On 8 Feb 2019, at 16:30, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote:
Folks, Maureen and Bastien have done a great job with drafting At-large comments on the Strategic Plan but they haven’t received enough feedback. Please take a look and comment by Sunday! Here are the comments: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LHZ56WJUHuqglhsDySKqqLCc_PxvyuwXgCzonwVN... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> Thanks! Jonathan Jonathan Zuck | Executive Director | Innovators Network jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck | <image001.png> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg>
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
Let’s hash this out Sunday morning in Kobe. Looking forward to it! From: cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2019 3:24 PM To: cpwg@icann.org Cc: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>; Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com>; Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] URGENT: Strategic Plan Comments Good evening : Thankyou for these comments. @ Maureen : In my view, the principal and priority issue in ICANN's strategic plan is to maintain the credibility and global acceptability of the multi-stakeholder system. Ensuring that there is a permanent balance in the ICANN decision making processes respecting the public interest, is an essential factor to that effect. In practice ALAC is the only multi-stakeholder entity that is able to achieve that. Otherwise, if ICANN continues to be driven primarily by the interests of incumbent operators, sooner or later the multi-stakeholder model will crack, for lack of international acceptability. Consequently I maintain that the issue of economic balance of interests within the multi-stakeholder community should be up front as a primary strategic objective for ICANN.org<http://ICANN.org> and the ICANN Community., supported, indeed demanded by ALAC. @Kalil : Noted ; I am aware of what you say, but it is not correct. Whether we call ICANN a 'regulator' or not, (or something else in another language), I don't care, but the fact is that the power that the ICANN Community and ICANN.org<http://ICANN.org> exercise over the allocation of DNS resources and the operators' business models exceeds that of official Regulators in several other sectors. For example, the ITU's powers over spectrum ; the national telecommunications Regulators over mobile phone licenses etc. Consequently,. I maintain my position. Thanks and Regards to you all, CW On 9 Feb 2019, at 20:06, Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com<mailto:kankaili@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi, Christopher, Regarding the point of "ICANN's credibility as the DNS Regulator", ICANN does not even admit itself as a "regulator", not to say to enhance its credibility as regulator. Thus, I would first propose ICANN to make clear about what exactly ICANN is before enforcing its anything. Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> To: Jonathan Zuck<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> ; cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2019 5:10 AM Subject: Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] URGENT: Strategic Plan Comments Dear Jonathan, Dear Friends and Colleagues : I hav read the draft ALAC response to the ICANN Strategic Plan. I appreciate and commend the work, effort and understanding of the rapporteurs to this effect. Your having requested comments, I would say that there is one paragraph in the draft that I would wish to see reinforced and emphasised. Under : 2. Improve the effectiveness of ICANN’s mulltistakeholder model of governance. I would wish to see a stronger statement that ICANN's credibility as the DNS Regulator requires greater efforts to ensure the balance of interests notably with regard to users and the public interest. In this context, I refer specifically to the comment received by the new gTLD PDP from the Public Interest Community : << 5. In setting up a host of 'procedural changes' that amount to a capture of the New gTLD Process by large incumbent portfolio applicants … This set of self-interested procedural initiatives defy the original goals of the new gTLD process. … These … goals will not be achieved by many of the policies being proposed which appear designed to support the drafters – largely incumbent registries… >> I consider that ALAC should give positive support to the concerns voiced by the Public Interest Community, not least because At Large is the only multistakeholder constituency with the presence and mandate to ensure the balance of interests in the PDP for the users and the public interest. In this context may I recall my previous postings about the essential benchmarks of the public interest in the new gTLD PDP: 1. Incumbent operators should not be allowed to determine the terms and conditions of access to TLDs by new entrants. 2. 'Portfolio' applications should be strongly discouraged, if not banned. 3. The economic rent to a 'Good Name' should accrue to the Registrant(s). They should not be burdened by fees and charges arising, notably, from auctions. The Registry has no business paying for, nor seeking compensation for, artificially excessive costs of registering a new TLD. The costs to Registrants should be moderated in consequence. I would be glad if the above considerations were included in the ALAC response to the Strategic Plan. Could I also say that, otherwise, ALAC may appear - to the outside world - as complicit in a degree of unhealthy collusion among the incumbent operators. This should not go on. Regards to you all Christopher Wilkinson On 8 Feb 2019, at 16:30, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Folks, Maureen and Bastien have done a great job with drafting At-large comments on the Strategic Plan but they haven’t received enough feedback. Please take a look and comment by Sunday! Here are the comments: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LHZ56WJUHuqglhsDySKqqLCc_PxvyuwXgCzonwVN... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> Thanks! Jonathan Jonathan Zuck | Executive Director | Innovators Network jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck | <image001.png> _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
Whaddya know, 'plus ça *change*, plus c'est la même chose'. See the paper written by a few of us way back when; 2013. Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb! -Carlton ============================= *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 3:30 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Let’s hash this out Sunday morning in Kobe. Looking forward to it!
*From:* cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> *Sent:* Saturday, February 9, 2019 3:24 PM *To:* cpwg@icann.org *Cc:* Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>; Kan Kaili < kankaili@gmail.com>; Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] URGENT: Strategic Plan Comments
Good evening :
Thankyou for these comments.
@ Maureen : In my view, the principal and priority issue in ICANN's strategic plan is to maintain the credibility and global acceptability of the multi-stakeholder system. Ensuring that there is a permanent balance in the ICANN decision making processes respecting the public interest, is an essential factor to that effect. In practice ALAC is the only multi-stakeholder entity that is able to achieve that. Otherwise, if ICANN continues to be driven primarily by the interests of incumbent operators, sooner or later the multi-stakeholder model will crack, for lack of international acceptability.
Consequently I maintain that the issue of economic balance of interests within the multi-stakeholder community should be up front as a primary strategic objective for ICANN.org and the ICANN Community., supported, indeed demanded by ALAC.
@Kalil : Noted ; I am aware of what you say, but it is not correct. Whether we call ICANN a 'regulator' or not, (or something else in another language), I don't care, but the fact is that the power that the ICANN Community and ICANN.org exercise over the allocation of DNS resources and the operators' business models exceeds that of official Regulators in several other sectors. For example, the ITU's powers over spectrum ; the national telecommunications Regulators over mobile phone licenses etc.
Consequently,. I maintain my position.
Thanks and Regards to you all,
CW
On 9 Feb 2019, at 20:06, Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, Christopher,
Regarding the point of "ICANN's credibility as the DNS Regulator", ICANN does not even admit itself as a "regulator", not to say to enhance its credibility as regulator. Thus, I would first propose ICANN to make clear about what exactly ICANN is before enforcing its anything.
Kaili
----- Original Message -----
*From:*cw@christopherwilkinson.eu
*To:* Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> ; cpwg@icann.org
*Sent:* Saturday, February 09, 2019 5:10 AM
*Subject:* Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] URGENT: Strategic Plan Comments
Dear Jonathan, Dear Friends and Colleagues :
I hav read the draft ALAC response to the ICANN Strategic Plan. I appreciate and commend the work, effort and understanding of the rapporteurs to this effect.
Your having requested comments, I would say that there is one paragraph in the draft that I would wish to see reinforced and emphasised. Under :
*2. Improve the effectiveness of ICANN’s mulltistakeholder model of governance.*
I would wish to see a stronger statement that ICANN's credibility as the DNS Regulator requires greater efforts to ensure the balance of interests notably with regard to users and the public interest. In this context, I refer specifically to the comment received by the new gTLD PDP from the Public Interest Community :
<< 5. In setting up a host of 'procedural changes' that amount to a capture of the New gTLD Process by large incumbent portfolio applicants … This set of self-interested procedural initiatives defy the original goals of the new gTLD process. … These … goals will not be achieved by many of the policies being proposed which appear designed to support the drafters – largely incumbent registries… >>
I consider that ALAC should give positive support to the concerns voiced by the Public Interest Community, not least because At Large is the only multistakeholder constituency with the presence and mandate to ensure the balance of interests in the PDP for the users and the public interest.
In this context may I recall my previous postings about the essential benchmarks of the public interest in the new gTLD PDP:
1. Incumbent operators should not be allowed to determine the terms and conditions of access to TLDs by new entrants.
2. 'Portfolio' applications should be strongly discouraged, if not banned.
3. The economic rent to a 'Good Name' should accrue to the Registrant(s). They should not be burdened by fees and charges arising, notably, from auctions. The Registry has no business paying for, nor seeking compensation for, artificially excessive costs of registering a new TLD. The costs to Registrants should be moderated in consequence.
I would be glad if the above considerations were included in the ALAC response to the Strategic Plan.
Could I also say that, otherwise, ALAC may appear - to the outside world - as complicit in a degree of unhealthy collusion among the incumbent operators. This should not go on.
Regards to you all
Christopher Wilkinson
On 8 Feb 2019, at 16:30, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Folks,
Maureen and Bastien have done a great job with drafting At-large comments on the Strategic Plan but they haven’t received enough feedback. Please take a look and comment by Sunday! Here are the comments:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LHZ56WJUHuqglhsDySKqqLCc_PxvyuwXgCzonwVN... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
Thanks!
Jonathan
Jonathan Zuck *|* Executive Director *|* Innovators Network
jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck |
<image001.png>
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
------------------------------
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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
Thank you so much, Carlton, for sending this most important paper again. I would like to call for CPWG (and maybe ALAC F2F meeting in Kobe) to further discuss this issue and take a position on it. Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: Carlton Samuels To: Jonathan Zuck Cc: cpwg@icann.org ; cw@christopherwilkinson.eu Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2019 5:53 AM Subject: Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] URGENT: Strategic Plan Comments Whaddya know, 'plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose'. See the paper written by a few of us way back when; 2013. Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb! -Carlton ============================= Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 3:30 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote: Let’s hash this out Sunday morning in Kobe. Looking forward to it! From: cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2019 3:24 PM To: cpwg@icann.org Cc: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>; Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com>; Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] URGENT: Strategic Plan Comments Good evening : Thankyou for these comments. @ Maureen : In my view, the principal and priority issue in ICANN's strategic plan is to maintain the credibility and global acceptability of the multi-stakeholder system. Ensuring that there is a permanent balance in the ICANN decision making processes respecting the public interest, is an essential factor to that effect. In practice ALAC is the only multi-stakeholder entity that is able to achieve that. Otherwise, if ICANN continues to be driven primarily by the interests of incumbent operators, sooner or later the multi-stakeholder model will crack, for lack of international acceptability. Consequently I maintain that the issue of economic balance of interests within the multi-stakeholder community should be up front as a primary strategic objective for ICANN.org and the ICANN Community., supported, indeed demanded by ALAC. @Kalil : Noted ; I am aware of what you say, but it is not correct. Whether we call ICANN a 'regulator' or not, (or something else in another language), I don't care, but the fact is that the power that the ICANN Community and ICANN.org exercise over the allocation of DNS resources and the operators' business models exceeds that of official Regulators in several other sectors. For example, the ITU's powers over spectrum ; the national telecommunications Regulators over mobile phone licenses etc. Consequently,. I maintain my position. Thanks and Regards to you all, CW On 9 Feb 2019, at 20:06, Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, Christopher, Regarding the point of "ICANN's credibility as the DNS Regulator", ICANN does not even admit itself as a "regulator", not to say to enhance its credibility as regulator. Thus, I would first propose ICANN to make clear about what exactly ICANN is before enforcing its anything. Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu To: Jonathan Zuck ; cpwg@icann.org Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2019 5:10 AM Subject: Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] URGENT: Strategic Plan Comments Dear Jonathan, Dear Friends and Colleagues : I hav read the draft ALAC response to the ICANN Strategic Plan. I appreciate and commend the work, effort and understanding of the rapporteurs to this effect. Your having requested comments, I would say that there is one paragraph in the draft that I would wish to see reinforced and emphasised. Under : 2. Improve the effectiveness of ICANN’s mulltistakeholder model of governance. I would wish to see a stronger statement that ICANN's credibility as the DNS Regulator requires greater efforts to ensure the balance of interests notably with regard to users and the public interest. In this context, I refer specifically to the comment received by the new gTLD PDP from the Public Interest Community : << 5. In setting up a host of 'procedural changes' that amount to a capture of the New gTLD Process by large incumbent portfolio applicants … This set of self-interested procedural initiatives defy the original goals of the new gTLD process. … These … goals will not be achieved by many of the policies being proposed which appear designed to support the drafters – largely incumbent registries… >> I consider that ALAC should give positive support to the concerns voiced by the Public Interest Community, not least because At Large is the only multistakeholder constituency with the presence and mandate to ensure the balance of interests in the PDP for the users and the public interest. In this context may I recall my previous postings about the essential benchmarks of the public interest in the new gTLD PDP: 1. Incumbent operators should not be allowed to determine the terms and conditions of access to TLDs by new entrants. 2. 'Portfolio' applications should be strongly discouraged, if not banned. 3. The economic rent to a 'Good Name' should accrue to the Registrant(s). They should not be burdened by fees and charges arising, notably, from auctions. The Registry has no business paying for, nor seeking compensation for, artificially excessive costs of registering a new TLD. The costs to Registrants should be moderated in consequence. I would be glad if the above considerations were included in the ALAC response to the Strategic Plan. Could I also say that, otherwise, ALAC may appear - to the outside world - as complicit in a degree of unhealthy collusion among the incumbent operators. This should not go on. Regards to you all Christopher Wilkinson On 8 Feb 2019, at 16:30, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote: Folks, Maureen and Bastien have done a great job with drafting At-large comments on the Strategic Plan but they haven’t received enough feedback. Please take a look and comment by Sunday! Here are the comments: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LHZ56WJUHuqglhsDySKqqLCc_PxvyuwXgCzonwVN... [docs.google.com] Thanks! Jonathan Jonathan Zuck | Executive Director | Innovators Network jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck | <image001.png> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
Thank you Christopher. I did not go as far as saying the balance of interests should be the primary goal, but it is a very important goal and I was able to use some of your language here to strengthen our section on geopolitical issues. Marita On 2/9/2019 12:24 PM, cw@christopherwilkinson.eu wrote:
Good evening :
Thankyou for these comments.
@ Maureen : In my view, the principal and priority issue in ICANN's strategic plan is to maintain the credibility and global acceptability of the multi-stakeholder system. Ensuring that there is a permanent balance in the ICANN decision making processes respecting the public interest, is an essential factor to that effect. In practice ALAC is the only multi-stakeholder entity that is able to achieve that. Otherwise, if ICANN continues to be driven primarily by the interests of incumbent operators, sooner or later the multi-stakeholder model will crack, for lack of international acceptability.
Consequently I maintain that the issue of economic balance of interests within the multi-stakeholder community should be up front as a primary strategic objective for ICANN.org <http://ICANN.org> and the ICANN Community., supported, indeed demanded by ALAC.
@Kalil : Noted ; I am aware of what you say, but it is not correct. Whether we call ICANN a 'regulator' or not, (or something else in another language), I don't care, but the fact is that the power that the ICANN Community and ICANN.org <http://ICANN.org> exercise over the allocation of DNS resources and the operators' business models exceeds that of official Regulators in several other sectors. For example, the ITU's powers over spectrum ; the national telecommunications Regulators over mobile phone licenses etc.
Consequently,. I maintain my position.
Thanks and Regards to you all,
CW
On 9 Feb 2019, at 20:06, Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com <mailto:kankaili@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi, Christopher, Regarding the point of "ICANN's credibility as the DNS Regulator", ICANN does not even admit itself as a "regulator", not to say to enhance its credibility as regulator. Thus, I would first propose ICANN to make clear about what exactly ICANN is before enforcing its anything. Kaili
----- Original Message ----- *From:*cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> *To:*Jonathan Zuck <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>;cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> *Sent:*Saturday, February 09, 2019 5:10 AM *Subject:*Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] URGENT: Strategic Plan Comments
Dear Jonathan, Dear Friends and Colleagues :
I hav read the draft ALAC response to the ICANN Strategic Plan. I appreciate and commend the work, effort and understanding of the rapporteurs to this effect.
Your having requested comments, I would say that there is one paragraph in the draft that I would wish to see reinforced and emphasised. Under :
*2. Improve the effectiveness of ICANN’s mulltistakeholder model of governance.*
I would wish to see a stronger statement that ICANN's credibility as the DNS Regulator requires greater efforts to ensure the balance of interests notably with regard to users and the public interest. In this context, I refer specifically to the comment received by the new gTLD PDP from the Public Interest Community : << 5. In setting up a host of 'procedural changes' that amount to a capture of the New gTLD Process by large incumbent portfolio applicants … This set of self-interested procedural initiatives defy the original goals of the new gTLD process. … These … goals will not be achieved by many of the policies being proposed which appear designed to support the drafters – largely incumbent registries… >>
I consider that ALAC should give positive support to the concerns voiced by the Public Interest Community, not least because At Large is the only multistakeholder constituency with the presence and mandate to ensure the balance of interests in the PDP for the users and the public interest.
In this context may I recall my previous postings about the essential benchmarks of the public interest in the new gTLD PDP:
1. Incumbent operators should not be allowed to determine the terms and conditions of access to TLDs by new entrants.
2. 'Portfolio' applications should be strongly discouraged, if not banned.
3. The economic rent to a 'Good Name' should accrue to the Registrant(s). They should not be burdened by fees and charges arising, notably, from auctions. The Registry has no business paying for, nor seeking compensation for, artificially excessive costs of registering a new TLD. The costs to Registrants should be moderated in consequence.
I would be glad if the above considerations were included in the ALAC response to the Strategic Plan.
Could I also say that, otherwise, ALAC may appear - to the outside world - as complicit in a degree of unhealthy collusion among the incumbent operators. This should not go on.
Regards to you all
Christopher Wilkinson
On 8 Feb 2019, at 16:30, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote:
Folks, Maureen and Bastien have done a great job with drafting At-large comments on the Strategic Plan but they haven’t received enough feedback. Please take a look and comment by Sunday! Here are the comments: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LHZ56WJUHuqglhsDySKqqLCc_PxvyuwXgCzonwVN... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> Thanks! Jonathan Jonathan Zuck *|* Executive Director *|* Innovators Network jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck | <image001.png> _______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
That's great, Marita. You are better at that than some of us (me), especially as you are travelling as well. On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 5:30 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Thank you Christopher. I did not go as far as saying the balance of interests should be the primary goal, but it is a very important goal and I was able to use some of your language here to strengthen our section on geopolitical issues.
Marita On 2/9/2019 12:24 PM, cw@christopherwilkinson.eu wrote:
Good evening :
Thankyou for these comments.
@ Maureen : In my view, the principal and priority issue in ICANN's strategic plan is to maintain the credibility and global acceptability of the multi-stakeholder system. Ensuring that there is a permanent balance in the ICANN decision making processes respecting the public interest, is an essential factor to that effect. In practice ALAC is the only multi-stakeholder entity that is able to achieve that. Otherwise, if ICANN continues to be driven primarily by the interests of incumbent operators, sooner or later the multi-stakeholder model will crack, for lack of international acceptability.
Consequently I maintain that the issue of economic balance of interests within the multi-stakeholder community should be up front as a primary strategic objective for ICANN.org and the ICANN Community., supported, indeed demanded by ALAC.
@Kalil : Noted ; I am aware of what you say, but it is not correct. Whether we call ICANN a 'regulator' or not, (or something else in another language), I don't care, but the fact is that the power that the ICANN Community and ICANN.org exercise over the allocation of DNS resources and the operators' business models exceeds that of official Regulators in several other sectors. For example, the ITU's powers over spectrum ; the national telecommunications Regulators over mobile phone licenses etc.
Consequently,. I maintain my position.
Thanks and Regards to you all,
CW
On 9 Feb 2019, at 20:06, Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, Christopher,
Regarding the point of "ICANN's credibility as the DNS Regulator", ICANN does not even admit itself as a "regulator", not to say to enhance its credibility as regulator. Thus, I would first propose ICANN to make clear about what exactly ICANN is before enforcing its anything.
Kaili
----- Original Message ----- *From:*cw@christopherwilkinson.eu *To:* Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> ; cpwg@icann.org *Sent:* Saturday, February 09, 2019 5:10 AM *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] URGENT: Strategic Plan Comments
Dear Jonathan, Dear Friends and Colleagues :
I hav read the draft ALAC response to the ICANN Strategic Plan. I appreciate and commend the work, effort and understanding of the rapporteurs to this effect.
Your having requested comments, I would say that there is one paragraph in the draft that I would wish to see reinforced and emphasised. Under :
*2. Improve the effectiveness of ICANN’s mulltistakeholder model of governance.* I would wish to see a stronger statement that ICANN's credibility as the DNS Regulator requires greater efforts to ensure the balance of interests notably with regard to users and the public interest. In this context, I refer specifically to the comment received by the new gTLD PDP from the Public Interest Community : << 5. In setting up a host of 'procedural changes' that amount to a capture of the New gTLD Process by large incumbent portfolio applicants … This set of self-interested procedural initiatives defy the original goals of the new gTLD process. … These … goals will not be achieved by many of the policies being proposed which appear designed to support the drafters – largely incumbent registries… >>
I consider that ALAC should give positive support to the concerns voiced by the Public Interest Community, not least because At Large is the only multistakeholder constituency with the presence and mandate to ensure the balance of interests in the PDP for the users and the public interest.
In this context may I recall my previous postings about the essential benchmarks of the public interest in the new gTLD PDP:
1. Incumbent operators should not be allowed to determine the terms and conditions of access to TLDs by new entrants.
2. 'Portfolio' applications should be strongly discouraged, if not banned.
3. The economic rent to a 'Good Name' should accrue to the Registrant(s). They should not be burdened by fees and charges arising, notably, from auctions. The Registry has no business paying for, nor seeking compensation for, artificially excessive costs of registering a new TLD. The costs to Registrants should be moderated in consequence.
I would be glad if the above considerations were included in the ALAC response to the Strategic Plan.
Could I also say that, otherwise, ALAC may appear - to the outside world - as complicit in a degree of unhealthy collusion among the incumbent operators. This should not go on.
Regards to you all
Christopher Wilkinson
On 8 Feb 2019, at 16:30, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Folks, Maureen and Bastien have done a great job with drafting At-large comments on the Strategic Plan but they haven’t received enough feedback. Please take a look and comment by Sunday! Here are the comments: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LHZ56WJUHuqglhsDySKqqLCc_PxvyuwXgCzonwVN... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> Thanks! Jonathan Jonathan Zuck *|* Executive Director *|* Innovators Network jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck | <image001.png> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
------------------------------
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
Hi Marita, I added some post-11th hour suggested edits to the googledoc for consideration. My apologies for their lateness, hoping they will "make the cut". Regards, Justine ----- On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 06:07, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
That's great, Marita. You are better at that than some of us (me), especially as you are travelling as well.
On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 5:30 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Thank you Christopher. I did not go as far as saying the balance of interests should be the primary goal, but it is a very important goal and I was able to use some of your language here to strengthen our section on geopolitical issues.
Marita On 2/9/2019 12:24 PM, cw@christopherwilkinson.eu wrote:
Good evening :
Thankyou for these comments.
@ Maureen : In my view, the principal and priority issue in ICANN's strategic plan is to maintain the credibility and global acceptability of the multi-stakeholder system. Ensuring that there is a permanent balance in the ICANN decision making processes respecting the public interest, is an essential factor to that effect. In practice ALAC is the only multi-stakeholder entity that is able to achieve that. Otherwise, if ICANN continues to be driven primarily by the interests of incumbent operators, sooner or later the multi-stakeholder model will crack, for lack of international acceptability.
Consequently I maintain that the issue of economic balance of interests within the multi-stakeholder community should be up front as a primary strategic objective for ICANN.org and the ICANN Community., supported, indeed demanded by ALAC.
@Kalil : Noted ; I am aware of what you say, but it is not correct. Whether we call ICANN a 'regulator' or not, (or something else in another language), I don't care, but the fact is that the power that the ICANN Community and ICANN.org exercise over the allocation of DNS resources and the operators' business models exceeds that of official Regulators in several other sectors. For example, the ITU's powers over spectrum ; the national telecommunications Regulators over mobile phone licenses etc.
Consequently,. I maintain my position.
Thanks and Regards to you all,
CW
On 9 Feb 2019, at 20:06, Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, Christopher,
Regarding the point of "ICANN's credibility as the DNS Regulator", ICANN does not even admit itself as a "regulator", not to say to enhance its credibility as regulator. Thus, I would first propose ICANN to make clear about what exactly ICANN is before enforcing its anything.
Kaili
----- Original Message ----- *From:*cw@christopherwilkinson.eu *To:* Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> ; cpwg@icann.org *Sent:* Saturday, February 09, 2019 5:10 AM *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] URGENT: Strategic Plan Comments
Dear Jonathan, Dear Friends and Colleagues :
I hav read the draft ALAC response to the ICANN Strategic Plan. I appreciate and commend the work, effort and understanding of the rapporteurs to this effect.
Your having requested comments, I would say that there is one paragraph in the draft that I would wish to see reinforced and emphasised. Under :
*2. Improve the effectiveness of ICANN’s mulltistakeholder model of governance.* I would wish to see a stronger statement that ICANN's credibility as the DNS Regulator requires greater efforts to ensure the balance of interests notably with regard to users and the public interest. In this context, I refer specifically to the comment received by the new gTLD PDP from the Public Interest Community : << 5. In setting up a host of 'procedural changes' that amount to a capture of the New gTLD Process by large incumbent portfolio applicants … This set of self-interested procedural initiatives defy the original goals of the new gTLD process. … These … goals will not be achieved by many of the policies being proposed which appear designed to support the drafters – largely incumbent registries… >>
I consider that ALAC should give positive support to the concerns voiced by the Public Interest Community, not least because At Large is the only multistakeholder constituency with the presence and mandate to ensure the balance of interests in the PDP for the users and the public interest.
In this context may I recall my previous postings about the essential benchmarks of the public interest in the new gTLD PDP:
1. Incumbent operators should not be allowed to determine the terms and conditions of access to TLDs by new entrants.
2. 'Portfolio' applications should be strongly discouraged, if not banned.
3. The economic rent to a 'Good Name' should accrue to the Registrant(s). They should not be burdened by fees and charges arising, notably, from auctions. The Registry has no business paying for, nor seeking compensation for, artificially excessive costs of registering a new TLD. The costs to Registrants should be moderated in consequence.
I would be glad if the above considerations were included in the ALAC response to the Strategic Plan.
Could I also say that, otherwise, ALAC may appear - to the outside world - as complicit in a degree of unhealthy collusion among the incumbent operators. This should not go on.
Regards to you all
Christopher Wilkinson
On 8 Feb 2019, at 16:30, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Folks, Maureen and Bastien have done a great job with drafting At-large comments on the Strategic Plan but they haven’t received enough feedback. Please take a look and comment by Sunday! Here are the comments: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LHZ56WJUHuqglhsDySKqqLCc_PxvyuwXgCzonwVN... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> Thanks! Jonathan Jonathan Zuck *|* Executive Director *|* Innovators Network jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck | <image001.png> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
------------------------------
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
Um, not sure the At-Large and by extension ICANN has a horse in that race. But purely on the intersection of the infrastructure/control/ connections issue, any country with an IXP infrastructure can achieve the objective it appears the Russian govt. has set itself. . CAS On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, 10:21 am mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW < mail@christopherwilkinson.eu wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47198426
CW
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (9)
-
Carlton Samuels -
cw＠christopherwilkinson.eu -
Holly Raiche -
Jonathan Zuck -
Justine Chew -
Kan Kaili -
mail＠christopherwilkinson.eu CW -
Marita Moll -
Maureen Hilyard