Tuesday, 31 October 2017

Meeting with Non-Commercial Users Constituency

Recordings: 

  • Adobe Connect  -  CCT presentation starts at 1:42:25 timestamp
  • Audio: mp3   -   CCT presentation starts at 1:36:13 timestamp

Transcripts: PDF

Questions:

Stephanie Perrin: What exactly have you explored to control anti-competitive behavior here? And my concern at the moment mostly in the context of any potential data protection regime that might come into play here is anticompetitive abuse reporting. So I’m interested in quality standards for and to control anticompetitive behavior in the absence of any kind of regulatory framework. I’m wondering what you guys have looked at.

Milton Mueller: So Jonathan I wondered if the committee read the comments that we made as a stakeholder group on your report because they were pretty outraged. I don’t know if you recall but fundamentally you divided a lot of things into things that have to be resolved before there can be any new TLDs. And the things in that basket were astounding. You’re saying you need to have more data gathering recommendations. You need to partner with other entities to collect statistical data. You make collection of secondary market data a prerequisite. You call for a periodic survey of registrants which in our opinion would put ICANN in the role of doing market research for private business. You want to hold up further rounds until we study whether the cost of defensive registrations can be reduced. And you just said in your report that, you know, they were much less than we thought they were going to be. And your overall conclusion we thought was correct which was there’s a dramatic increase in consumer choice, a modest increase in competition and minimal impact on consumer trust and yet you’re saying you’re sort of implying unless massive changes are made to further protect trademark owners which is always the bias the tilt in ICANN it seems we can’t have any more new (rounds). I mean what’s up with that?

Farzaneh Badii: So we have in our public comments on your report we had a concern that these recommendations push ICANN far beyond its limited scope. We add into the content regulation we actually we are - we issued a statement about ICANN should not be become a content regulator and it’s in its bylaw. But we also said which recommendation should be improved or should be removed in order to (unintelligible) ICANN limited mission mandate. Did you take those recommendations into account?

Stefania Milan: I would like to speak to briefly get your word on some procedural issues. So in our comments we also read a concern and a quote that several bypass (around) recommendations bypass and display displays for the GNSO policy development processes and procedure putting a lot of – well demanding action of PDP Working Group and eroding confidence in the GNSO Council. I’m just summarizing. Can you comment to the concerns that we have?

  • No labels