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

Eduardo Diaz eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com
Wed Aug 7 15:56:14 UTC 2019


I recommend that we re-focus our policy magnifying glass towards ICANN
policies as suggested by Evan in a previous email: *"... imploring ALAC to
concentrate its comments on those issues with demonstrable effect on end
users (abuse, confusion, stability, etc)"*

So, I suggest that as part of the way the CPWG works today, we frame any
future policy work by applying these criteria first and decide if we want
to comment, refer it to other WGs or do nothing at all.

Let's talk about this during today's call.

-ed


On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:43 AM Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:

> Hi Sala, long time no talk.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.) 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.
>
>
>> 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?
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.



-- 
*NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or
subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named
addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use,
disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by
mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/attachments/20190807/a0346b86/attachment.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