[At-Large] The Case for Regulatory Capture at ICANN | Review Signal Blog

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Wed Jun 26 14:37:11 UTC 2019

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 3:17 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 05:05, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> wrote:
>  .
> But to end-users? To people who will never buy a domain, many of whom will
> actually type a FQDN on their browser less than once a year? What is their
> stake in all of this? How are they impacted? These are questions that ALAC
> has rarely if ever truly tackled, and yet this is the small-c constituency
> we exist to speak for. We do a crappy job of it because we're constantly
> conflating what's good for domain buyers with what's good for the billions
> impacted by DNS policy. Our definition of consumers does not comprise the
> consumers of domain names, but the consumers of the products and services
> of domain owners. To the extent that we have constantly (and knowingly)
> blurred that distinction, we have abrogated responsibility to perform
> ALAC's bylaw-defined mandate.

SO: Evan I hear you, but I think if you read your statement above again,
you might see that a typical end-user can actually be a registrant (and
vice versa) so I really don't think one can make a clear distinction
between the 2 as you seem to be attempting.

> I'd love nothing more than a debate on price caps -- or any other
> substantive ICANN issue -- truly focused on the impact on people who don't
> and never will own domains.

SO: While debate on above is within scope, the impact on individuals who
uses the domains is also not out of scope as they indeed are end users. I
think the ICANN structure has been setup in a way that makes it look like
it's possible to entirely raise registrants interest (ncsg) distinctly from
end user (AtLarge) interest but I find that that to remain good on paper
and perhaps has remain the source of the "ironically" good relationship
within those 2 stakeholders over the years.

> As Olivier also said, ALAC needs to keep speaking, but it needs to be
> clearer whose interests it's speaking for. If we don't at least try to
> address the interests of non-registrant end-users, who will?

SO: Agree but the idea that registrants (or to put it better certain
registrants) isn't part of end users will on it's own question the basis to
legitimately argue for the non-registrants within ICANN.


> - Evan
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20190626/2b179bba/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the At-Large mailing list