Reminder CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA
Fri May 19 16:56:51 EEST 2017
Thanks to everyone who put all the work in on this document. I
corrected a few typos, it looks great, I agreed with Ayden's comment
that we need a sic there or change to but if it is a typo....
But I endorse. Great work!
Stephanie Perrin
On 2017-05-17 15:08, Viviane Vinagre wrote:
> Hi Rafik! I will give a look tomorow and will try to contribute!
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Viviane Vinagre
>
> 2017-05-17 12:33 GMT-03:00 Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com
> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>:
>
> Milton,
>
> Great additions and critiques of Recommendations 1-15! I've added
> three more sections for our review of Recommendations 16 to 50.
> Please join us in reviewing and evaluating these recommendations!
>
> Best, Kathy
>
>
> On 5/17/2017 9:50 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>>
>> I have added a bunch of stuff to the document.
>>
>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:25 PM
>> *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>; Kathy Kleiman
>> <Kathy at kathykleiman.com> <mailto:Kathy at kathykleiman.com>; Ayden
>> Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>
>> *Cc:* NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
>> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>> *Subject:* Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Reminder CCT RT Initial Draft
>> Comments for NCSG
>>
>> Hi Ayden, Kathy, Milton,
>>
>> thanks for the comments and suggestion, can you please include
>> them directly in the google doc?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2017-05-16 7:42 GMT+09:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu
>> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>:
>>
>> Kathy
>>
>> Thanks for calling this out. I have scanned the report and
>> read the executive summary and recommendations. This is an
>> odd but very ICANNesque report. Look at the basic conclusions
>> the report reached:
>>
>> Initial indications are that the New gTLD Program has led to
>> a dramatic increase in consumer choice, a modest increase in
>> competition and minimal impact on consumer trust.
>>
>> Those are the conclusions actually supported by the data.
>> Unfortunately, politics set in immediately and the
>> recommendations reflect an attempt by the IPR interests – who
>> have completely lost their attempt to show that new TLDs were
>> a plague – to win by losing. So the massive number of
>> recommendations, several of which call for holding up all new
>> applications until dozens of studies and changes are
>> completed, are in effect a fishing expedition license that
>> would give the anti-industry crowd another 2 years to find
>> some data – any data – that they can use to hold things up
>> even longer:
>>
>> “Nonetheless, the Review Team believes that there is a
>> substantial need for more and better data on both competition
>> and pricing and on the impact of safeguards on consumer
>> protection.”
>>
>> I agree that the data collection recommendations are
>> excessive and reflect the momentum created by a growing
>> bureaucracy. Many have almost nothing to do with consumer
>> protection. One could also characterize this as an attempt by
>> the CCT RT to prolong its existence. It’s nice being flown
>> around…
>>
>> I probably won’t have time to play a big role in comment
>> development but would urge you not to go one by one through
>> the 50 recommendations. Rather, I would group them into a few
>> simple categories, such as:
>>
>> A)Useful
>>
>> B)Delaying tactic
>>
>> C)Needless bureaucratic expansion that is unjustified by any
>> finding in the report
>>
>> Finally, I burst out laughing at this one:
>>
>> “the CCTRT found that GAC participation in the application
>> and evaluation process was largely beneficial and led
>> directly to modifications of applications and applicants more
>> successfully navigating the process.”
>>
>> Obviously an entirely political finding, for despite repeated
>> references to “data-driven analysis” in the report I cannot
>> find any hard data that supports this conclusion. I think we
>> should call that out. GAC interventions in the application
>> and evaluation process were highly disruptive, unfair,
>> inconsistent, persistently deviated from settled GNSO policy
>> directions, and resulted in all kinds of shadow regulation.
>> We must challenge that finding. At the same time, we should
>> be praising the report for basically coming to the right
>> conclusions when they stick to the facts: opening up the
>> market for new TLDs increased consumer choice, increased
>> competition, and has no discernable negative effect on
>> consumer trust.
>>
>> Dr. Milton L Mueller
>>
>> Professor, School of Public Policy <http://spp.gatech.edu/>
>>
>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>
>> Internet Governance Project
>>
>> http://internetgovernance.org/
>>
>> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>] *On Behalf Of *Kathy
>> Kleiman
>> *Sent:* Monday, May 15, 2017 1:20 PM
>> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: Reminder CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG
>>
>> I agree with Ayden about adding sections that review the
>> recommendations one by one. The fact that there are 50 is
>> extraordinary in and of itself.
>>
>> Some initial thoughts:
>> 1) A large amount of collection of pricing data is requested
>> in Draft Recommendations 2-8. For those who work with
>> pricing issues, what concerns are raised by ICANN collecting,
>> publishing and acting on pricing data?
>> 2) A number of recommendations direct the GNSO Working Groups
>> to take additional interests and concerns into account.
>> Should a Review Team be directing Working Groups and GNSO
>> policy considerations (particularly here where the Review
>> Team is putting their fingers on the scale towards the
>> interests of Intellectual Property and Business Constituencies?)
>> 3) A number of the recommendations are very vague. This gives
>> great power and discretion to those who will interpret and
>> implement the recommendations. How best to clarify?
>> 4) As Ayden points out, Shadow Regulation appears to be an
>> integral part of these recommendations -- with a very broad
>> approach to abuse. How to narrow to the type of abuse we
>> generally consider to be within the scope of ICANN, e.g,.
>> abuse that impacts the security and stability of the Internet
>> (botnets, malware...)
>>
>> Work ahead! Please jump in!
>> Kathy
>>
>> On 5/15/2017 10:57 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The Google Doc is opening for me. Thanks for the first
>> draft of this, Poncelet. I would like to suggest that we
>> structure our comment along the 50 (!) recommendations
>> that are in the draft report, if not addressing all of
>> them, at least reacting to the most pertinent ones.
>>
>> From memory, the Canadian International Pharmacy
>> Association expressed concern in Copenhagen over
>> similarities between some of the recommendations in the
>> CCT RT initial draft and the "Healthy" Domains
>> Initiative. So we might want to look out for traces of
>> shadow regulation in the report. Thanks.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden Férdeline
>>
>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>>
>> Subject: Re: Reminder CCT RT Initial Draft Comments
>> for NCSG
>>
>> Local Time: May 15, 2017 2:12 PM
>>
>> UTC Time: May 15, 2017 1:12 PM
>>
>> From: matthew at INTPOLICY.COM
>> <mailto:matthew at INTPOLICY.COM>
>>
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>>
>> Hi all - thanks Rafik.
>>
>> Have any third parties - outside of ICANN - done any
>> work on this issue? It would be important to see if
>> there has been I think.
>>
>> Also, I don't seem to be able to access the
>> google.doc - says I need permission.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> On 15/05/2017 14:22, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> this is a reminder to review and add your
>> comments on the draft made by Poncelet for NCSG
>> on the Competition, Consumer, Consumer Choice
>> review team report
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agDMTd8rDvhDb5mwg6fdfQSyRpQZjtjxmGaqx5NCJG8/edit
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agDMTd8rDvhDb5mwg6fdfQSyRpQZjtjxmGaqx5NCJG8/edit>
>>
>>
>> (the public comment is here
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-rt-draft-report-2017-03-07-en
>> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-rt-draft-report-2017-03-07-en>)
>>
>> the deadline for submission is the 19th May.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> Image removed by sender.
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>
>>
>>
>> Virus-free. www.avg.com
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Matthew Shears
>>
>> matthew at intpolicy.com <mailto:matthew at intpolicy.com>
>>
>> +447712472987 <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
>>
>> Skype:mshears
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170519/0a049b36/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 444 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170519/0a049b36/attachment.jpe>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list