[NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi,

Thanks Ed for drafting the comment.
I can support the comment, also agree that mention of BC should be removed.

Best,

Rafik

2017-05-28 11:43 GMT+09:00 avri at acm.org <avri at doria.org>:

> (Observing)
>
> That this makes sense to me. Fine with seeing it submitted, though I see
> no reason to mention the business constituency - but it is ok. I think it
> enough to say ncsg participated in comment / objection.
>
> Avri
>
>
>
> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
> Date: 5/27/17 22:13 (GMT-05:00)
> To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>, Poncelet Ileleji <
> pileleji at ymca.gm>
> Cc: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170528/59ef1748/attachment.htm>