[GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] New gTLD Applicant Support - improve it, or scrap it?

Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Wed Aug 7 08:46:42 UTC 2019


On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, 9:43 am Evan Leibovitch, <evan at telly.org> wrote:

> Hi Sala, long time no talk.
>
Yes, we need a drink :) Comments are inline below.

>
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 04:12, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> My challenge is whether a non-registrant end-user interest exists in this
>>> either way, and whether ALAC has credibility to pass judgement on the
>>> program at all as part  of its bylaw mandate.
>>>
>>
>> Of course, the ALAC has credibility, were'nt you a part of ALAC.
>>
>
> Indeed I was, even Vice-Chair for a few years. That's how I got close
> enough to understand that there is indeed a challenge of credibility. A
> serious one that impairs our voice when we speak on issues that *do* effect
> end-users.
>
The issues affect end users.

>
> If we are asked "upon what do you base you assertion that end users want
> XXX policy?", we struggle. In reality the 15 ALAC reps are making judgment
> calls regarding what they think end users want, based on really little more
> than an educated guess. (the model of ALAC members soliciting RALOs that
> then solicit their ALSs on policy issues is rarely in play.)
>
Then this can be easily rectified. And a gentle nudge to encourage this.

Those who may oppose our PoV know this, and have a valid point when they
> challenge the basis upon which we choose our sides. Often our educated
> guesses are good ones but that's still all they are, devoid of real
> research of what end-users want/need from ICANN.
>
>
I hear you. Then if empirical research is warranted, there is nothing
stopping the staff from putting this together or using the At Large budget
to hire a consultant to do this.

> IMO, this is an issue of interest to other ICANN constituencies but the
>>> end-user constituency has no stake in how it is resolved.
>>>
>>
>> I disagree. The end user has a stake as was with the Amazon scenario etc.
>>
>
> Please elaborate. Exactly what stake does the end-user have?
>
Do you really think end-users care who owns .amazon? Upon what do you base
> this assertion?
>

ALAC members by virtue of being elected are able to give qualified opinions
of their knowledge of their region and this is based on interactions within
their communities. I suggest the LACRALO representatives are better
qualified to respond to the views of end users from their region just as we
in APRALO are better versed to give views from our region.

> When I asked around to people I knew who weren't techies or policy wonks,
> there was actually a general sentiment that it didn't matter, and if they
> had to choose .amazon should go to the book company and .amazonas should go
> to the governments if they really thought it was needed.
>
> I suspect that if we solicited public opinion, globally more people would
> find it more useful if the bookstore owned the TLD. Again, what we might
> guess with an NGO mindset might conflict with what end-users really want.
> So when we stake a position and are challenged, upon what do we base our
> PoV? Credibility challenge.
>
>
>
>> The question at hand is not "is Applicant support worthwhile" but "do end
>>> users care if there is applicant support or not".
>>>
>>
>> Of course they do
>>
>
> Evidence? Rationale? Please, tell me exactly why they care. Not "should
> they care" but "do they care". I really want to know the reasoning behind
> the assertion.
>
>
>> even if they are not aware, that is where the ALAC has to make a judgment
>> call.
>>
>
> Again, what is rationale for why ALAC *must* speak up even if its
> constituency has no interest in the issue?
> Do we speak merely for the sake of speaking?
>
> Noted, but your questioning the credibility of ALAC
>>
>
> As Olivier and Maureen and anyone else active in ALAC can attest, the
> credibility challenge comes from all over ICANN. I am trying to address it
> by imploring ALAC to concentrate its comments on those issues with
> demonstrable effect on end users (abuse, confusion, stability, etc)
>
> - Evan
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/attachments/20190807/465095ac/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.


More information about the GTLD-WG mailing list