Proposed comment on .NET RA

[Vidushi Marda]

Hi All,

In the NCSG comment, wouldn't it be important to mention how this
presumptive renewal goes against ICANN's core values of using market
mechanisms to promote a competitive environment and promoting
competition to benefit the public interest?

Renewing the contract without an open tender is perpetuating a monopoly
of a close to a billion dollars. It doesn't help that ICANN gets a
substantial amount of money from verisign either - see here:
https://twitter.com/VidushiMarda/status/656041061278609408

Curious to hear your thoughts!

Vidushi

On 29/05/17 19:52, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> I have reviewed the comments and support them. Thanks to those who took
> the initiative to develop these comments!
> 
>  
> 
> --MM
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] *On Behalf Of
> *Ayden Férdeline
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 28, 2017 4:08 AM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* Fw: Proposed comment on .NET RA
> 
>  
> 
> Greetings, all-
> 
> Ed Morris has kindly drafted a comment on behalf of the NCSG on the .NET
> Renewal Agreement. Over the coming days the Policy Committee will
> consider endorsing it. If you have any comments or suggested edits,
> please feel free to comment on the Google Doc itself (link in the email
> chain below, along with a summary of the issue) or in this thread. As
> the submission deadline is Tuesday, please comment by Monday if you have
> anything that you would like the Policy Committee to be aware of. Thank
> you!
> 
> Best wishes, 
> 
>  
> 
> Ayden Férdeline
> 
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>     -------- Original Message --------
> 
>     Subject: Proposed comment on .NET RA
> 
>     Local Time: May 28, 2017 3:13 AM
> 
>     UTC Time: May 28, 2017 2:13 AM
> 
>     From: egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>
> 
>     To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>     <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm
>     <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>>
> 
>     ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
> 
>      
> 
>     Hi everybody,
> 
>      
> 
>     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
>     (http://domainincite.com/19450-odd-couple-coalition-wants-urs-deleted-from-legacy-gtld-contracts
>     ).
> 
>      
> 
>     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.
>     (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-net-renewal-20apr17/attachments/20170521/d67e3bb5/INTAdotNETRenewalFINAL05-21-17-0001.pdf
>     ). 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.
> 
>      
> 
>     I’ve started a Google Doc here:
>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Et_G0aHmhgYlHu8gC95RkXrJ6LeJeaBTReGExS_T2kg/edit
> 
>      
> 
>     I’ve restricted the initial comment to two items:
> 
>      
> 
>     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
> 
>      
> 
>     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) .
> 
>      
> 
>     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.
> 
>      
> 
>     Comment is due in Tuesday midnight. I hope we can get PC sign off by
>     then.
> 
>      
> 
>     Thanks,
> 
>      
> 
>     Ed
> 
>      
> 
>  
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0x75B6D829.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 3090 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170530/9acf5f5e/attachment.key>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 866 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170530/9acf5f5e/attachment.sig>