<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Thanks all for the support.</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">I also agree with removing reference to the BC link. It was late and I was in a charitable mood. :) Thanks Avri for picking up on it.</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Best,</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Ed<br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On 28 May 2017, at 10:16, Rafik Dammak <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">Hi,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Thanks Ed for drafting the comment.</div><div class="gmail_extra">I can support the comment, also agree that mention of BC should be removed. </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Best,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Rafik<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">2017-05-28 11:43 GMT+09:00 <a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@doria.org" target="_blank">avri@doria.org</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div>(Observing)</div><div><br></div><div>That this makes sense to me. Fine with seeing it submitted, though I see no reason to mention the business constituency - but it is ok. I think it enough to say ncsg participated in comment / objection.</div><div><br></div><div>Avri</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div id="m_7534096410805754308composer_signature"><div style="font-size:85%;color:#575757" dir="auto">Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device</div></div><div><div class="h5"><div><br></div><div style="font-size:100%;color:#000000"><div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Edward Morris <<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" target="_blank">egmorris1@toast.net</a>> </div><div>Date: 5/27/17 22:13 (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Ayden Férdeline <<a href="mailto:icann@ferdeline.com" target="_blank">icann@ferdeline.com</a>>, Poncelet Ileleji <<a href="mailto:pileleji@ymca.gm" target="_blank">pileleji@ymca.gm</a>> </div><div>Cc: ncsg-pc <<a href="mailto:ncsg-pc@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank">ncsg-pc@lists.ncsg.is</a>> </div><div>Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA </div><div><br></div></div><span style="font-family:'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',Sans-Serif;font-size:14px"><div>
<div>Hi everybody,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>During our most recent Policy Committee meeting we decided that we were not going to submit a comment on the .NET Renewal Agreement. For the first time in years ICANN was presenting a legacy gTLD renewal agreement that wasn’t noxious. Specifically, there was no effort to expand the URS and PDDP into the legacy gTLDs thus creating de facto consensus policy by staff negotiated contract. This is an issue the NCSG has been very vocal about in the past. In fact, we did a joint comment on it with the Business Constituency (BC) that created a bit of a stir in the industry press (<a href="http://domainincite.com/19450-odd-couple-coalition-wants-urs-deleted-from-legacy-gtld-contracts" target="_blank">http://domainincite.com/<wbr>19450-odd-couple-coalition-<wbr>wants-urs-deleted-from-legacy-<wbr>gtld-contracts</a> ).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Well, I now think we should submit a public comment on the Agreement. To support it. The IPC has rallied its troops to try to convince the Board to require the inclusion of the URS and PDDP in the RA. (<a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-net-renewal-20apr17/attachments/20170521/d67e3bb5/INTAdotNETRenewalFINAL05-21-17-0001.pdf" target="_blank">http://mm.icann.org/<wbr>pipermail/comments-net-<wbr>renewal-20apr17/attachments/<wbr>20170521/d67e3bb5/<wbr>INTAdotNETRenewalFINAL05-21-<wbr>17-0001.pdf</a> ). I don’t think we need to have an elaborate comment but I do think we need to show the flag. When ICANN finally does something we’ve been pressing them to do for a few years we should acknowledge it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I’ve started a Google Doc here: <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Et_G0aHmhgYlHu8gC95RkXrJ6LeJeaBTReGExS_T2kg/edit" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/<wbr>document/d/1Et_<wbr>G0aHmhgYlHu8gC95RkXrJ6LeJeaBTR<wbr>eGExS_T2kg/edit</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>I’ve restricted the initial comment to two items:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>1. Commending ICANN and Verisign for agreeing to let Consensus Policies dictate IP protection requirements rather than imposing the staff created new gTLD RPM’s on .NET, and</div>
<div> </div>
<div>2. Supporting creation of a special fund using proceeds from the Registry-Level Transaction Fees to support developing country stakeholders participation at ICANN ( as the funds aren’t segregated I have suggested we ask the Board to annually report on the use of these monies – to ensure they are being spent as intended) .</div>
<div> </div>
<div>These are both traditional NCSG positions and I hope we can quickly reach agreement on them. Overall, I believe it’s a good agreement and it is certainly much better than the last few RA’s. I have a few quibbles about some of the pricing arrangements but in an effort to keep the comment short and focused on the IP issue, and to quickly get consensus here, I thought it best to forgo commenting on them.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Comment is due in Tuesday midnight. I hope we can get PC sign off by then.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ed</div>
</div>
<div> </div></span>
</div></div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
NCSG-PC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ncsg-pc</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>