[ALAC] Fwd: Registries Not Happy with Registry Agreement

[JJS]

*Brilliant analysis Carlton, with the added spice of your style, wherein
one recognizes some generous ingredients from Fitzgerald, Naipaul, Rushdie.
A joy to read!*
*
*
*Recently, under the aegis of Google,** a "domain name association" was
formed, *
*http://www.whatdomain.org/
*
*
*
*Where does the global public interest fit into all of this? 3 points:*
*
*
*- The creation of such a business association lifts any ambiguity about
whether ICANN should or should not also serve as the domain business
association. Clearly, business taking care of its own interests outside of
ICANN relieves our corporation from having to worry about those who
benefitted and still benefit from the land grab.*
*
*
*- I'd take this even a step further: the "domain name association" will
most likely be overwhelmingly English-language, US-based and therefore
under US laws regarding trademarks, "intellectual property" (please read
"keep off my grass, I got here first"), with a fair proportion of smaller
actors in Australia, New Zealand, etc. This association will replicate the
current standards, with little room for *registries* from elsewhere. So I
would strongly advocate the formation of "domain name associations" in
other parts of the world, with the view of creating, one day, a truly
worldwide association which would not be beholden unto the mainly US big
players.*
*
*
*- Without waiting for that to happen, we should take position on the fact
that the creation of a "domain name association" does indeed lift any
remaining ambiguity about the remit of ICANN. We should make clear that it
is ICANN's duty to serve, above anything else, the global public interest.
We should be able to fit this topic into the over-arching theme I suggested
in an e-mail sent around yesterday for Atlas-2, "The User Perspective".*
*
*
*Best regards,*
*Jean-Jacques.*


2013/5/4 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>

> Ah well... if and only if....
>
> .....ICANN would declare the global public interest as its reason to be.
>  And if it'd just get over itself and flat out say 'we a regulator!' all
> this argumentation over the unilateral right to amend from the RySG would
> be just some pissing in  the wind.
>
> The fact is ICANN unilaterally gave registries license to monetize
> character strings, known and hitherto unknown.  And then ICANN took a
> little shaving from that gift, called a fee.  You see so-called third world
> fleshpots condemned for the exact same thing with tones of high
> moral dudgeon.   Not to make too fine a point of it, the registry operators
> got themselves a gift that keeps on giving; a protected market, all of us
> lessees. Quite apart from the unlucky - or plain dumb - few, they're all
> the better for it.
>
> Now, here's the catch. Such action most places are usually in the gift of
> the state. And the state tends to raise a statist actor, sometimes called a
> regulator - and in noisome places, a regular 'bagman' - to protect its
> interests. The common method to retain some measure of control is a
> license; see the definitive meaning of that term.  And since that license
> is the fiat of the state, it usually is handed down, no input from the
> licensee other than their name and particulars. Take it. Or, leave it.
>
> If ICANN would just come out and state the obvious, "I am a regulator, suck
> on it' all this unpleasantness would've been avoided.
>
> The contract is supposed to reflect ICANN standing athwarts the portal,
> like Leonidas guarding that gateway to Thermopylae, as it were, protecting
> the global public interests from the marauding - go with the metaphor now!
> - 'contracted parties'.  The figment is the claim that the contract is this
> bastion of consensus policy making.  That is overstating the facts and
> brushing the line beyond which propaganda begins. For the contracted
> parties no way in hell see the rest of the community as having a say in all
> this.  Quick now, who can recall them crying out for all of us, the fry,
> being invited to the party?
>
> To be brutally frank, I see this kvetching of Chuck Gomes and the RySG
> crowd purely as a manifestation of impatience with the assault on their
> sense of exceptionalism.  Message from me: count your fingers going in. And
> count 'em again, coming out.
>
> -Carlton
>
>
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> =============================
>
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:
>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> > Date: 3 May 2013 17:10
> > Subject: Registries Not Happy with Registry Agreement
> > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
> >
> >
> > Powerful comments from Chuck Gomes & Verisign about the proposed Registry
> > Agreement and ICANN's lack of good faith in the negotiation process:
> >
> >
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-29apr13/msg00002.html
> >
> > It would seem things aren't as cheery and ready to close on RA as ICANN
> > said.
> >
> > Best,
> > Robin
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >
> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> > ALAC Working Wiki:
> >
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> >
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>