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

[Maureen Hilyard]

Evan, in my example cos I am always looking at what is happening in my
backyard, what I am saying too is that end-users in my space don't care,
but that's because they are unaware. They don't know what they should be
caring about. But that doesn't mean that if they had genuine support BEFORE
the application process to understand what ICANN and the domain system and
new gtlds were all about, then they might care.  So I don't think that
At-Large should drop it at all. So what  "support" do we give to
PRE-Applicants?

On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:49 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:

> In my many years of being involved in ICANN, I have rarely seen my point
> of view so mischaracterised. The very subject line of this thread indicates
> IMO a significant lack of grasp of my core point and indeed a substantial
> mis-framing of the debate I had hoped to initiate.
>
> Let me be clear: I am neither for improvement of nor scrapping Applicant
> Support.
>
> 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. IMO, this is an issue of
> interest to other ICANN constituencies but the end-user constituency has no
> stake in how it is resolved. My response to "improve or scrap?" is "it
> doesn't matter".
>
> That is the point I was making on last week's call, not that we change our
> opinion but that we simply withdraw and assert no opinion. The question at
> hand is not "is Applicant support worthwhile" but "do end users care if
> there is applicant support or not". Never once in the recent debate have I
> advocated that AS was inherently wrong. I just question our continued focus
> on a question that -- given the new facts and evidence at hand since the
> rollout of that gTLD round -- has demonstrated no positive or negative
> consequences for end users.
> My advocacy here is for ALAC to be selective in addressing only issues in
> which end-users have a genuine stake in the outcomes. I assert that this
> issue (Applicant support) is only the first identified ALAC issue in which
> end users have no justification to claim interest. I have commented
> elsewhere on a second issue of this type, geoname TLDs, as chapter 2 of the
> theme of "not my circus, not my monkeys". They're not our fights, and we
> demean our credibility elsewhere when we assert otherwise.
>
> Cheers,
>
> - 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190806/bdf7b5e6/attachment.html>