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

[Maureen Hilyard]

If you can come up with an At-Large definition we can add it somehow into
the ALS criteria review item 🙂

On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, 8:23 PM Nadira Alaraj, <nadira.araj at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Maureen and all,
> Please can anyone lead me to the definition of "end-users" from the
> At-large perspective?
>
> I don't want to dwell into what I heard At-large end-users could be
> because I might be misinformed.
>
> Having such definition makes the many discussions I've been reading since
> I joined At-large of greater focus.
>
> If there are no end-user definition for AT-large, I suggest to add this on
> the agenda item for ATLAS III.
>
> Best wishes to all,
> Nadira
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 09:01 Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20190806/3831c32a/attachment.html>