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

[Alan Greenberg]

It may interest those without a long history in ICANN and At-Large to know that the ALAC initiated (and I Chaired) the only modern-era PDP that related to registrant rights - the Post-expiration domain name recovery PDP which led to the Expired Registration Recovery Policy (ERRP). This Policy helps ensure that registrants do not inadvertently let their domains expire, and if they do, ensures that they are alerted to the fact and have an opportunity to recover them.

There is a (mild) user connection in that Internet users do appreciate that the web sites that they use do not suddenly disappear overnight! During the course of the PDP, we were well supported by the GNSO Business Constituency. There was one relalatively passive NCUC participant in the PDP, but there was virtually no real support from the NCUC.

So we do have a good track record of supporting registrants, and particularly those who do not have corporate departments looking after their portfolios.

The difference between that PDP and more recent situations is that there was a individual user benefit and more importantly no individual user negative impact.

Where there IS a conflict between the needs of registrants (who happen to be individual users) and the non-registrant individual users, we have a long history of supporting the non-registrant individual users - a position I support and hope that At-Large continues to support. If we do not, we are not being true to our ICANN Bylaw mandate.

Alan





At 28/06/2019 12:08 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Thu, 27 Jun 2019, 16:06 Evan Leibovitch, <evan at telly.org<mailto:evan at telly.org>> wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 04:40, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> > wrote:



We do not need to defend registrants, half of GNSO already does that. We are uniquely tasked with speaking for those who are completely outside the ICANN food chain. If we are incapable of finding a distinct voice, that's on us.


SO: Well your statement above does not seem be inline with the bylaws


Exactly how?

The reference to ALAC is in Section 12.2(b). Please indicate the discrepancies,

This will be interesting.


SO: It's actually section 12.2(d) and the point is that the section didn't say registrants were excluded from "individual internet end users". However I reiterate that I do agree (and definitely appreciate the well thought out illustration by Robert) that registrant's interest should not be our only focus as ALAC and I really don't think it's been the only focus in practice.

Regards


--
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
@evanleibovitch or @el56

_______________________________________________
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<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/20190628/dcbe4a02/attachment.html>