<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><font size="+1">As you are no doubt aware, we have had two
planning meetings for virtual cancun this, week, and it is clear
we have very little time and a much shrunken agenda. However,
we do have to get topics to discuss with the Board. Nobody has
responded on the list to my call for input, and it is due today.</font><br>
</p>
<p><font size="+1">How about this. the NCSG, reflecting the views
of civil society generally, would like to comment on a few
recent events at ICANN that have raised alarm bells in terms of
the ongoing affordability and sustainability of an open, free,
and vigorous DNS. The first of these is the impending sale of
.ORG. We did not raise our concerns about the removal of price
caps, although a significant proportion of our community were
dead against this action. Many others had faith in .ORG, and
trusted their commitments, We were disappointed to learn of the
sale in the manner in which we did, so soon after the removal
of the price caps. <br>
<br>
The second issue is the removal of price caps for .com. Since
.com still accounts for 80% of GTLD registrations, how can ICANN
justify the removal of price caps for such a monopoly registry?<br>
The third issue we want to highlight is the cost of the
impending SSAD being developed by the EPDP, bearing in mind that
the benefits of this system have not been balanced against
costs, and many of the decisions which are driving the high
volumes of requests CANNOT be automated. Is the cost of this
white elephant [you tell me if that is still an acceptable
expression, actually I should check that with my most culturally
aware kid, since after all for a non-english speaker it must be
hard to keep up with our political correctness.....] driving
ICANN to permit wholesale price increases in the industry?<br>
3:36 PM<br>
Another topic we wish to raise is the ongoing sustainability of
the MS model. You have hinted in the past that travel costs and
concern about our carbon footprint may dictate fewer face to
face meetings. Given the growing complexity of the policy work
(cf. the EPDP, which comes on the heels of the RDS working
group, an exhausting debate highlighted by limited progress and
much disagreement) we doubt that we can produce good results
without face to face meetings. We applaud staff and the
community for responding quickly to the crisis precipitated by
the cancellation of the CANCUN meeting, but it is very clear
that this meting is a pale shadow of a normal ICANN public
meeting. Given the strong possibility that ICANN68 will also
have to be cancelled due to the Corona virus situation, may we
suggest that a study group be struck to make recommendations
about how to improve these virtual meeting and make them more
accessible to all global players?</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">I would be grateful for your comments. IF you
discussed it at the policy committee that I missed last week, I
do apologize, because there was no recording I have been unable
to catch up.</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">kind regards, Steph</font><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>