[ALAC] Fwd: Registries Not Happy with Registry Agreement

Sun May 5 16:02:17 UTC 2013

Carlton and JJS,

To your mind, why is it that the board hasn't provided a rationale as to
why it would support the unilateral right to amend?  What are the
constraints?

Where is staff getting the motivation to push from?

Fadi's remarks during the Ry call in March indicated that there will be no
new gTLD lift off without agreement on PICs and from Beijing I get a sense
that he will pursue it.

Rinalia
On May 5, 2013 11:31 PM, "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear JJ:
> Evan has promised to send you something that might go nicely with what is
> advocated here.
>
> I truly value your judgment and advice. So from me personally, it is always
> gratifying to know that you - and other colleagues - are so in touch with
> the influences that colour my view of the world.
>
> Best,
> -Carlton
>
>
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> =============================
>
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:15 PM, JJS <jjs.global at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > *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)
> >>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>