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

Thu Jun 27 17:55:52 UTC 2019

For as long as I have caucused with the At-Large, there has been tensions
in determing just who are to be the focus of our attentions.  Not just
among the At-Large adherents but with and among the NCSG and GAC.

Some of us have triaged based on the competing classification by numbers.
And have us have come down on the side of the greater number as the
At-Large main focus. And on that basis, have 'pledged our troth' to the big
number; that 4M...now.

I cannot even abide the idea there could still be confusion about how wegot
to that place. Especially since that 'decision informed by the number'
exercise outlined in this thread by Roberto has been executed so many times
out of memory.

-Carlton

==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:55 AM Roberto Gaetano <
roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com> wrote:

> I would like to make a few comments on the issue
> users-that-are-registrants vs users-that-are-not-registrants.
> I agree with Seun that it is not easy - and might be unfair - to make the
> distinction between registrant and users, because registrants are also
> users (as are CEOs of Registries or Registrars or large corporations or
> Government Ministers… and so on).
> However, we need to make some sort of distinction.
> First, let’s get the figures to understand the extent of the issue.
> How many are the registrants? I do not have an exact figure, but
> considering that there are also registrants that have even thousands of
> domains, maybe we can have 100 millions as a ballpark figure - I sincerely
> doubt that we are even near that, let alone being higher, but let’s assume
> that.
> How many are the internet users? Estimates talk about half of the world
> population - and I would argue that we have to take care of the interests
> of also the to-be-internet-users, the ones that are normally called “the
> next billion”. So we are talking about at least 4 billions different
> individual users.
> That is at best 2.5%.
> So much for the quantity. Now the quality.
> I am an internet user and a registrant. As registrant, I am interested in
> low prices and in privacy of my personal information as registrant.
> However, as an internet user, I am interested in being able to identify the
> owners of a web site that is proposing goods or services to me and am
> interested in curbing the scam going on on the net. Since I own my domain
> names only for personal or limited use - that is, I am not making a living
> out of it - while most of my life online is spent as a user, for me it is
> easy to say that, even being a registrant, my interests as user are
> prevailing on my interests as registrant.
> So, I would like to make sure that ALAC defends my interest as user and
> does not dilute them with other considerations that are quantitatively and
> qualitatively irrelevant or at least out of place.
> Cheers,
> Roberto
>
>
> On 26.06.2019, at 15:37, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Regards
>
>> - 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190627/20f79e4b/attachment-0001.html>