<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:#0b5394">On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 13:28, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <<a href="mailto:ocl@gih.com">ocl@gih.com</a>> wrote:<br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Dear Evan,<br>
<br>
thanks for your response to my prior email. I think that we are
aligned in wishing that the ALAC represents the interests of
Internet Users and not solely Registrants.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">Yes we are. But I think that ALAC stretches itself into fighting battles which mean a great deal to reguistrants and not much at all to the public at-large.</div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">Geo names, for instance. Why should an internet user care about dot-france or dot-australia being privately owned?</div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">Or vertical integration?</div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">Or, for that matter, Appliacnt Support (which I admit got be sucked in too)<br></div></div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">ALAC gets involved in far too many things which have negligible impact on end-users, fighting the fight of registrants. And I can think of two clear-cut instances in which would-be registry owners tried to use their involvement in At-Large to boost their changes of acceptance.<br></div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">ICANN has always operated on the BS
premise, propagated by the domain-selling industry, that
every person and entity on earth is a potential registrant
who simply hasn't yet been convinced to buy one. Besides
being simply wrong, this approach has infiltrated ALAC
culture to the point where we're defending the interests of
registrants rather than end-users. And in price caps we
have an absolutely classic example.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"></span>That is incorrect. The fact that the ALAC primarily defends the
interests of end users that are not registrants, is a major point of
disagreement that the ALAC has with NCUC who defends the interests
of Registrants.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">I agree with you on the divergence, which as a fomer ALAC liaison to NCSG I saw first hand on numerous occasions. Indeed there are a few signicficant issues in which we differ. But that does not deter from my point that ALAC spends far too much time engaged in their battles that have no impact on end users.<br></div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> I heard it again this week that one of the rules for
joining NCSG is to have registered a domain name. It is a tick box
that is included in the NCSG individual application form (
<a class="gmail-m_-9201370875067289807moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://members.ncsg.is/individual_application" target="_blank">https://members.ncsg.is/individual_application</a> ) and in the NCSG
organisation application (
<a class="gmail-m_-9201370875067289807moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://members.ncsg.is/organization_application" target="_blank">https://members.ncsg.is/organization_application</a>) <br>
<br>
Reading the ALAC Statement relating to price caps, I have to repeat
it again: the Statement concludes that "So, we are essentially
grappling with competing considerations and uncertainties. After
balancing the same, we do not find support for a particular position
regarding the removal of price caps."<br>
<br>
How does this equate to "the ALAC is defending the interests of
registrants rather than end users"?</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">I had hoped that ALAC would support their removal as a partial path to reduce speculation and the resulting artificial scarcity which does indirectly affect end-users. But I agree that's a better stance than knee-jerk opposition -- THAT would be completely in support of registrants to the (indirect) detriment of end-users. <br></div></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"></div><div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">Cheers,</div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">- Evan</div><br></div></div></div>