[NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA

[Milan, Stefania]

Thanks Rafik. Consensus on my side, sorry for not being able to contribute meaningful content in due time. Stefania

________________________________________
Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Inviato: mercoledì 31 maggio 2017 06:14:07
A: Ayden Férdeline
Cc: ncsg-pc
Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA

Hi all,

deadline already passed a few hours ago, with no objections heard, I think we can submit the comment (latest version attached). so I will send the comment.
Thanks.

Best,

Rafik


2017-05-30 17:50 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
Thanks Ayden, the deadline for submission is in 15hours and we need to wrap-up this. if I don't hear objection by Today 23:59UTC I would submit the comment
@Ed can you please share the latest version.

Best,

Rafik

2017-05-30 17:47 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
Hi Rafik,

Yes, I did express support for the comment with two revisions (both of which have since been resolved in the Google Doc). I hope we will be able to submit this comment, if there is support.

Best wishes, Ayden


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA
Local Time: May 30, 2017 9:45 AM
UTC Time: May 30, 2017 8:45 AM
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
To: Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>
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 all,

this is a reminder about reviewing and endorsing the comment on .net agreement renewal.
I think Ayden expressed support for the comment. I reviewed the comment and agreed with the removal of BC mention. waiting for others to share their thoughts.

Best,

Rafik

2017-05-28 11:13 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>:
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<mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc





The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.