[ALAC] Fwd: Registries Not Happy with Registry Agreement

Tue May 7 01:38:08 UTC 2013

*Hi All,*
*
*
*having gone through all your interesting (and sometimes profound)
observations once again, and then forcing myself to take a telescopic view,
I would like to offer a few remarks covering several of the topics
discussed.*
*
*
*- In the foreground, trying to attract attention, are a bunch of things
for registries and registrars; compliance; document deadlines; the
inequality of status between Board, SOs, GAC and other ACs; the number of
sub-themes to be had in Atlas-2. And I see AoC, but also ATRT 1 & 2, as
attempts to breathe rationality and legitimacy into a system which was
simply not designed for that purpose.*
*
*
*- In the distance, but looming larger, I see a fundamental flaw in the way
ICANN was launched (it was launched, more than really designed). Because of
their cultural complexion, the founders considered that an Internet body
would be a known animal, formed of familiar parts all manageable, simply
scaled up. They had not foreseen that public authority would, though
belatedly, want to be entrusted with upbringing their baby. They had not
predicted that business would come to hold sway in ICANN, simply because
the business model they envisaged was not designed to attain its present
proportions. This is how a one-man system of name attribution, under
Postel, has developed into this contraption having to manage a >100 M
$/year operation, and soon perhaps much more.*
*
*
*- What we are stuck with now is a complex dilemma. When this thing was
DARPA, the single biggest challenge was making sure the signal got through.
As nobody was out to defend a global public interest, or even to formulate
such a concept in relation to the Internet, businesses and solicitors were
quick to promote corporate interests, as soon as the military experiment
turned public. As a result, we now have business demanding T+50 not as a
privilege, but as a right; the onus of proof ("show us that there is
effective harm") now rests on the shoulders of the lay, not on those of the
DNS clergy; and the US DoC is painstakingly trying to socialize the idea
that although ICANN operates solely under California law and is cleverly
overseen by an Under Secretary, it is in fact an international organization
which, at this stage, still requires an act of faith on your part.*
*
*
*- So, where do we go from here? Of course, at this stage it is necessary
to carry on with existing reform, to respond to questions or remarks from
the Structural Improvements Committee, to provide data for ATRT-2. But as
the "natural home" of the general Internet user, the ALAC should indeed, as
proposed by Evan and supported by others, go the full length. Because the
Internet has become, almost unwittingly, the first global infrastructure in
human history, *
*- we have the duty to consider principles, not only convenience; *
*- to question existing structures, if clearly they no longer serve those
principles; *
*- to foster a complete Internet eco-system not based on exclusivity (e.g.
either ITU or ICANN), but building on the proven advantages of each entity
(ICANN has a lot to learn from ISOC in terms of identifying the public
interest, the IGF experiment could be taken forward in another shape, etc).
*
*
*
*- Most likely, all suggestions will not be implementable. That's all
right, provided that at some point, a group of concerned people did
identify the real challenges on which to base their proposals. That may be
us.*
*
*
*This was a roundabout way of supporting Evan's suggestion to deal with
fundamentals. Taboos are upheld only to the advantage of those who
formulated them.*
*
*
*Best regards,*
*Jean-Jacques.*

2013/5/7 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>

> As I understand the situation, it is not really a "rationale" that is
> lacking, but concrete examples of future harms which the right to
> amend could address.
>
> As we enter a world that may be very different than the one we are in
> now (and certainly with a very different mix of registry players, and
> a world where the distinction between a registry and a registrar is
> no longer a sharp line, if indeed there is any distinction at all),
> it is difficult to call up what the specific harm is that may
> threaten ICANN or the public interest. But it is not unreasonable
> that good stewardship requires that the Board have SOME remedy for
> future unknown, but at the time critical, issues.
>
> Some of you may have heard me recount of a time quite a few decades
> ago when I had to install a fibre optic link when such things were a
> rarity outside of telecom companies. There were two bidders, one who
> we knew would do whatever it took (including lose money) to honour
> the word of the contract. The other would do the same to honour the
> intent of the contract. Given that we really did not know what to put
> in a bullet-proof contract for fibre-optics, we chose the latter
> company. In our mind, that was the only possible choice, since we
> fully expected there might well arise some "gotcha" during the
> process, but we were totally unable to identify what that might be.
> So we needed a process that would cover an as-yet-unknown problem.
> Although a completely different situation, I suspect the logic of the
> Board is similar.
>
> Alan
>
> At 05/05/2013 08:40 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> >Hi Rinalia:
> >I think a significant but maybe still minority set have in principle; must
> >be the reason the concept appears in the RAA and RA Agreements.  But this
> >fear of being the DNS 'regulator' cripples their public posture, at least
> >until they see which way the wind blows.
> >
> >Then in addition, I really do believe there is a very small group of
> senior
> >policy staff that are fellow travelers; they hold the view that ICANN must
> >be more activist in the broad public interest.  These seem to be feeling
> >their oats and feeding off Fadi's seeming commitment to push the envelope.
> >
> >So far as I am concerned, the ALAC must deliberately calibrate all of our
> >public postures to support this development.
> >
> >Best,
> >-Carlton
> >
> >
> >==============================
> >Carlton A Samuels
> >Mobile: 876-818-1799
> >*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> >=============================
> >
> >
> >On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <
> >rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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)
> > >>
> > >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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)
>