[lac-discuss-en] - Price caps - was: The Case for Regulatory Capture at ICANN | Review Signal Blog

[MBA11]

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]
[[--This message had format issues and was not translated properly--]]


Subject:Re:  - Price caps - was: The Case for Regulatory
 Capture at ICANN | Review Signal Blog
Desde:MBA11 <alberto at soto.net.ar>

I agree Roberto. I think that lately we are thinking a lot like ICANN and not like who should defend the interests of the end users.

Best regards,
Alberto

On 6/29/19 9:41, "lac-discuss-en on behalf of Roberto Gaetano" <lac-discuss-es-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org en nombre de roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com> wrote:


[[--Translated text (en -> es) -]]
[[-This message had format issues and was not properly defined]]]


Subject: Re: - Price caps - was: The Case for
Regulatory Capture at ICANN | Review Signal Blog
From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>

Good day / night everyone.
Having read carefully the contributions of Karl and Evan on this subject, I must say that I lean more towards Evan's side. But this is, in general, irrelevant to what I want to say.
What seems unfortunate to me is that it seems that we can not make these two great minds at the same table work together to find a mutually acceptable solution instead of insisting on making their own points: that the other party refutes with equal insistence.
I think we've all understood the points. The question is whether we have a possible mediation that is acceptable to both parties that have a common ground in attention to the diverse community of users.

Can we try to think outside the box?

Can we propose a maximum price that differentiates between existing records and new records?

We can propose to analyze what "use" and "non-use" mean and, instead of a fixed increase in rates, we have a diversified rate according to use (non-use is subject to a higher rate, obviously)?

Can we propose to establish limits for the secondary market, such as a limit for the purchase / sale ratio?

Can we propose that the domain fee is not fixed but is related to the market value of the domain?
I know that most, if not all, of the examples I am giving will be proven (or assumed) impracticable, but that should not prevent us from brainstorming what could be a common ALAC position, even outside the limits of the limitations. perceived by ICANN. By providing us, I am sure that others will have better ideas to debate in search of a common proposal instead of basically "well, we really do not know", that is the only possible result if we are only in opposition to each other.
In my opinion, for too long we have been taken hostage from an externally defined stake fence. It's time we start thinking if there is something that should be said and done for Internet users in their own interest, and not just as a reaction to issues that are of interest to other parts of the multi-stakeholder community.
And I have the conviction (
illusion?) That the ATLAS III meeting in a few months can be the cornerstone to build a strategy for ALAC that is totally focused on Internet users.
Cheers,

Robert



    > On 29.06.2019, at 02:03, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:   
    >    
    >    
    > On 6/28/19 2:36 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:   
    >    
    >> Here's another, anecdotal datapoint: I have been involved in the Internet for nearly as long. But it's been helping family, friends, small businesses, colleges, religious institutions, and refugees in camps. I've worked with entrepreneurs both new and established, struggling to make a presence on the Internet and finding that their first 20 choices were only available at an aftermarket premium. The result is that they either had to:   
    >>  * change their brand name to suit the available names (this has 

    >>    happened more than once) 

    >>  * agonize over whether to settle for a domain name using hyphens 

    >>  * pay a lesser premium in a new TLD they don't know is fully reachable 

    >>  * resign themselves to having a non-memorable (ie, shitty) domain and 

    >>    using other strategies to lead people to them. 

    >  

    > I agree that it is sad that we don't live in a world of pink ponies, unicorns, perfect equity, and no competition for resources. 

    >  

    > Your people want "brand names" - which I read as a synonym for "trademark" - and find that someone else has already registered it? 

    >  

    > That's pretty normal life in the land of trade names.  Somebody got there first.  Somebody else go there too late.  That is not speculation, that is not abuse. 

    >  

    > Athol Fugard wrote that "the saddest words ... are 'too late'." 

    >  

    > Or are you arguing that there is some sort of elevated goodness attribute that should allow "family, friends, small businesses, colleges, religious institutions, and refugees" to preempt prior uses? And who shall be the judge that weighs applicants to measure who is the more worthy? 

    >  

    > (Given that my wife and I make large contributions of our time, labor, and money to non-profit and charitable organizations, we might find that kind of preemptive power useful.  But I doubt that such a thing would always be perceived as fair or just by the prior users.) 

    >  

    > (And I do wonder about the inclusion of "small business" and "entrepreneurs" in that list - I'd love to have my small businesses to have a power of preemption.  And in the several start-ups that I've done I would have welcomed the ability to take a domain name away from another prior user.)   
    >    
    > Are you focusing on the notion of "use"?  If so, what is "use" of a domain name?  Must it resolve - for any query from any source - to an IP address, or a TXT record or something?  If that requirement were put into place you can bet that every registrar will quickly deploy a "sufficient to pass muster" resolver service for its customers to use.   
    >    
    > (Since you mentioned entrepreneurs - A common practice in start ups is to register a portfolio of domain names as candidates for products or corporate names, to hold them in private for several years, and then to sell off the ones that were not selected to be put into play.  Does that constitute a "use" or an "abuse"?)   
    >    
    > Regarding hyphenated or even non-semantic names - Anyone these days who depends on humans making semantic sense out of a domain name is living in days of fading glory.  Search engines, especially when embedded in browser address bars, have long ago started to diminish the use of domain names as carriers of semantic content.  And the rise of application handles such as facebook or twitter names has diminished that further.   
    >    
    > 	--karl--   
    > _______________________________________________
    > At-Large mailing list
    > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
    > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
    > 
    > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
    > _______________________________________________
    > 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 (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.

_______________________________________________
lac-Discuss-en mailing list
lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy)

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you agree to the processing of your personal data in order to subscribe to this mailing list in accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and Terms of service of the website (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos).You can visit the previous Mailman link to change the status or configuration of your membership, including the cancellation of the subscription, the configuration of the summary style delivery or the total deactivation of the delivery (for example, for a vacation), etc. and the Terms of Service of the website (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the previous Mailman link to change the status or configuration of your membership, including the cancellation of the subscription, the configuration of the summary style delivery or the total deactivation of the delivery (for example, for a vacation), etc.

[[--Original text (en)
Translated by transbot 2.18-2.04
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/bb28a55664.html
-]]
_______________________________________________
lac-discuss-en mailing list
lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es

http://www.lacralo.org
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list according to the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (eg, for a vacation), and so on.



_______________________________________________
lac-discuss-en mailing list
lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://www.lacralo.org

http://www.lacralo.org
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list according to the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (eg, for a vacation), and so on.and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (eg, for a vacation), and so on. 

[[--Original text (es)
Translated by transbot 2.18-2.04
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/df6323e0c3.html
--]]