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

[Jonathan Zuck]

I’ve been working on that very thing and hope eventually to bring it up on the CPWG call. 😉

From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 11:45 PM
To: Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj at gmail.com>
Cc: CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] New gTLD Applicant Support - improve it, or scrap it?

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20190807/97ec1259/attachment.html>