<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>The 1997-2001 period is a different country. The question I have
is whether the sale of PIR by ISOC represents anything more than a
bow to the now completely obvious.</p>
<p>Domain name registration via ICANN structures is not a public
interest activity but a business with some strong cartel like
features. <br>
</p>
<p>In this sense there is a real positive in ISOC acknowledging and
clarifying the bigger picture by removing itself. The disposal
suggests the need for a new approach by those concerned that
people who are users of Internet resources are under influential
in a structural long term sense in their governance and their
management.<br>
</p>
<p>best Christian<br>
</p>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 21/11/2019 17:13, Roberto Gaetano
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:AA1A0F31-C0D9-4217-A924-D0EE510E9689@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:
space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">After repeated
failures of my email, I am posting with a new email account, but
it is still me, Roberto Gaetano :-)
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I have a different reading than Olivier of both
turning points that he mentions. First of all, I am not so
negative about the Bildt recommendation. I might agree that
the risk of having registrants captured by domaines was a
possibility, but I did not see it so dangerous at that time,
maybe because I was naif about the potential push from civil
society to avoid that.</div>
<div class="">Also, I am a long time supporter of the approach
where “the best is good’s worst enemy” - I assume that you say
that in English similarly to how we say in Italian. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">A completely different story is my reading of the
IAHC vs NewCo proposals. I have been a supporter of the IAHC
(actually, I was a member of the POC - Policy Advisory
Committee - as well as in the Executive Committee of CORE -
Internet Council of Registrars - so I admit I might have been
biased.</div>
<div class="">I never believed that NewCo would have delivered a
“power to the people” solution (neither would have the IAHC,
btw), but at least they could have broken NetSol’s monopoly -
but even this minimal result was achieved only partly, in the
sense that the market share was left almost untouched, but at
least there has been a price control (the very thing that is
being now released). The Green Paper looked like something
that had been put together in a hurry, with the sole purpose
of stopping - or slowing down - the IAHC proposal, that with
CORE becoming operational as organization at the end of 1997
and with development plans for an SRS ongoing was becoming
dangerous. However, the White Paper was different, it showed
that there was a serious effort to build an alternative
proposal. That was obvious also looking at the financial
supporters, organisations like ATT, IBM, etc., letting alone
the power of USG. Having worked for 12 years for IBM I have
learned two things: they never release centralisation of the
power (this is the main reason why their network architecture
failed, but this is another story) and they never - or very,
very rarely - bet on losers.</div>
<div class="">So I was convinced that, although the IAHC had the
best approach, NewCo would have prevailed in the end, and that
it was a mistake not to get involved in that project to try to
obtain at least something. This was a minority view in CORE
and I ended up in being the only CORE ExCom member to attend
the first IFWP meeting in Reston.</div>
<div class="">Anyway, long story short, had we the IAHC solution
in operation, registries would be acting as non-profit,
leaving the competition and the commercial aspect to
registrars. This also means that we would not have been here
discussing about the sellout of a non-profit registry to sa
commercial investment fund that will transform it into
something different.</div>
<div class="">But we can’t rewind history.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">On one point I fully agree with Olivier. As Chair
of the DNSO GA, I can confirm that some of the DNSO mailing
lists discussions were indeed toxic.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Cheers,</div>
<div class="">Roberto</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On 19.11.2019, at 07:43, Olivier MJ
Crépin-Leblond <<a href="mailto:ocl@gih.com" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">ocl@gih.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class=""> Dear
Wolfgang,<br class="">
<br class="">
thank you for your follow-up. Please find my comments
inline:<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18/11/2019 22:05,
Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2111829160.231670.1574100323550@email.ionos.de"
class="">
<div class=""> Bildt proposed that At Large
membership should be open to "individual domain
name holders". The idea was to form six regional
At Large Councils (with five members) and a global
At Large Council (with 12 members/two from each of
the six regions). Recognized At Large members
would have a right to vote for the five members of
their regional council and also vote for the
regional Board director. The plan was to have a
balance in the ICANN board among "developers"
(technical community), providers (business) and
users (civil society) of services, with
governments in an advisory capacity. </div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
A significant mistake was made by the Bildt Committee
and that's to propose restricting membership to
"individual domain name holders". The DNS is used by
all users, not only by domain name holders. In fact,
there is a designation for individuals that hold a
large number of domain names and that's "domainer". So
in fact Bildt was proposing ICANN to close itself into
its microcosm of domain name businesses and domainers,
quite the contrary from the openness that was
displayed when ICANN first started.<br class="">
<br class="">
This was a significant step back for end users and I
understand how some supporters of ICANN Version 1 were
irritated enough to leave the process altogether. They
felt betrayed. As someone who had been actively
involved in supporting the "other" proposal, the
Internet Ad-Hoc Committee (IAHC - <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://icannwiki.org/IAHC"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://icannwiki.org/IAHC</a>
), resulting in a gTLD MoU ( <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://icannwiki.org/GTLD-MoU"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://icannwiki.org/GTLD-MoU</a>
) the debate became political very quickly, with
concerns by US politicians that the Root and its
resources would leave the USA. Upon hindsight, perhaps
the IAHC's proposal was not end-user friendly, but I
remember that one of the significant points made in
the presentation of ICANN, along with the Green and
White papers, was that it had a very strong end user
component, through its election process. I think that
a lot of people, reading this, myself included,
shifted our view from supporting a gTLD MoU future to
an ICANN future when this end user component was
promoted. What happened during the re-organisation of
ICANN was, in my view, nothing short of capture, and
it took me until 2008 to accept it. BTW the DNSO
mailing list discussions were toxic.<br class="">
Kindest regards,<br class="">
<br class="">
Olivier<br class="">
</div>
_______________________________________________<br
class="">
At-Large mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org"
class="" moz-do-not-send="true">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br
class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a><br class="">
<br class="">
At-Large Official Site: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://atlarge.icann.org">http://atlarge.icann.org</a><br
class="">
_______________________________________________<br
class="">
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the
processing of your personal data for purposes of
subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the
ICANN Privacy Policy
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website
Terms of Service (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>).
You can visit the Mailman link above to change your
membership status or configuration, including
unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation),
and so on.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a>
At-Large Official Site: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://atlarge.icann.org">http://atlarge.icann.org</a>
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>