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

Maureen Hilyard maureen.hilyard at gmail.com
Wed Aug 7 20:35:24 UTC 2019


I agree too.

On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 10:32 AM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
wrote:

> Agree completely!!!!!!!!!
>
> Jonathan Zuck
> Executive Director
> Innovators Network Foundation
> www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of
> Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 7, 2019 8:56:14 AM
> *To:* CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] New gTLD
> Applicant Support - improve it, or scrap it?
>
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/attachments/20190807/e88357bf/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