<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Stephanie,</div><div><br></div><div>some comments below:</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le sam. 29 févr. 2020 à 05:45, Stephanie E Perrin <<a href="mailto:stephanie@digitaldiscretion.ca" target="_blank">stephanie@digitaldiscretion.ca</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<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></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>it will be one hour call and the board having several calls in row so no idea how productive it will be :) however, I am usually for keeping the discussion focused on few topics and not going around too many. I will support keeping to 1 or 2 topics since the board already suggested some too.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><p><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></font></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I guess the question of removing cap has many aspects. It is about the whole process of agreement renewal and how it is used to add for example other RPMs like URS. We responded to those public comments before and we missed others. Many questioned if the comments have any impact which is a legit question. Regarding the affordability and access, board can easily point that the market has more competition and choice than before for users. The issue of access to domain name in developing countries has less to do with registries than access to registrars that can respond to that market needs. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><p><font size="+1">
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></font></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I assume the board and Goran will point that they communicated to EPDP before about the costing and they cannot give any numbers till EPDP team finish its work. I think we need to double check first in the ICANN 5 years strategy and budget about what was planned in term funding. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><p><font size="+1">
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></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I think that is reasonable idea and to think carefully about all those meetings in holistic manner (one concern among others I have is that meetings become milestones and drive all the work) . I have personally some doubts about F2F meetings and their effects would impact us in long run. We need to find the balance.</div><div><br></div><div>Circling back to board suggestions:</div><div><li style="margin-left:15px">Key priorities for action of ICANN constituencies in 2020 (e.g. prioritization of recommendations, streamlining of reviews, improve effectiveness of ICANN’s multistakeholder model, ...)</li><li style="margin-left:15px">Specific developments coming up that ICANN constituencies feel need to be addressed when updating the ICANN Strategic Plan.</li></div><div><br></div><div>I guess we can highlight that we are supporting PDP 3.0 improvements. with regard MSM evolution, we probably need to understand how we will be to get involved when the different tracks are assigned to SO/AC. for prioritization of recommendations, I assume that is about those coming from review teams and I am . I don't think we discussed that throughly within NCSG and I am not sure what we can respond with confidence other than what I mentioned in the beginning or that we are working GNSO future work. This is something for PC to manage this month and work with NCSG members regarding our priorities.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Rafik</div></div></div>