ICANN and Economics

[Michael Karanicolas]

Interesting discussion. I agree with parts of the article, though as others
have noted, the author seems to gloss over the efforts of many in the ICANN
community to push back against the very behaviours that he flags and demand
better (though with admittedly mixed results...).

I also take exception to its constant conflagration of ICANN's Intellectual
Property Rights Protection Mechanisms with "the global public interest". As
someone who's active in the RPMs working group, I can tell you there are
many aspects of these mechanisms which are very much counter to the public
interest, extending trademark rights vastly beyond the limits that are
established under traditional IP law. Painting the failure to expand these
rights still further as some kind of organizational flaw reflects a very
particular way of looking at the world.

Best,

Michael

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 12:13 PM Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
wrote:

> Farzi,
>
> This was one of the problems I and others predicted. It will be extremely
> difficult to change since you will be going against the interests of ICANN,
> which does not want more effective checks from the multistakeholder
> community, and the other constituencies.
>
> Hope all is well,
>
> Brett
>
> ------------------------------
> Brett Schaefer
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security
> and Foreign Policy
> The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org
>
> __________
>
> On Jun 5, 2019, at 10:35 AM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Paul.
>
> I also agree with some of his arguments. But regarding this part:
>
> "The stakeholder community that was supposed to serve as the check and
> balance on the ICANN organization has gone AWOL — bought off by the promise
> of a pittance and sung to sleep by fanciful lullabies of castles in the sky.
>  "
>
> Was there a public comment period about the fanciful lullabies of castles
> in the sky? I don't think NCSG got the memo about that offering :)
>
> I think we are falling short of serving checks and balances on ICANN but
> the problem is also that we are institutionally trapped, the more powerful
> stakeholders have a lot of influence on ICANN org and we have groups that
> have no mission whatsoever but to protect ICANN org and the status quo.
> There has to be some way to change this.
>
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 9:41 AM Paul Rosenzweig <
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
>
>> All
>>
>> This article is worth a read.  The author, Greg Thomas, used to work for
>> Verisign.  These days he observes ICANN from the outside.  While I do not
>> endorse the entirety of his analysis, he raises some troubling questions
>> about ICANN's budgetary planning:
>>
>> https://medium.com/the-query/icann-and-voodoo-economics-in-wonderland-e76c4c
>> b82c69?source=friends_link&sk=4a58165ab8445fca613bab1128ef5cf1
>> <https://medium.com/the-query/icann-and-voodoo-economics-in-wonderland-e76c4cb82c69?source=friends_link&sk=4a58165ab8445fca613bab1128ef5cf1>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Paul Rosenzweig
>> Red Branch Consulting, PLLC
>> 509 C St. NE
>> Washington, DC 20002
>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>> www.redbranchconsulting.com
>> www.paulrosenzweigesq.com
>> My PGP Key:
>> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190605/d3b30575/attachment.htm>