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

[Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro]

My comments are inline:

On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, 6:49 am 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.
>
Noted.

>
> 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. We should
be seen to be supporting the ALAC and yes it is within its mandate.
Oliver's historical overview clearly lays out the ALAC's consistent
contribution.

> 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.

> 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".
>

Of course they do and even if they are not aware, that is where the ALAC
has to make a judgment call. Otherwise what is the point?

> Never once in the recent debate have I advocated that AS was inherently
> wrong.
>

Noted, but your questioning the credibility of ALAC re AS is communicating
the opposite. Glad you are clarifying your position.

> 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.
>

It does not matter, the ALAC must continue to  speak up and be verbal about
end users support whether we are seen to be making a dent.

> 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 disagree and say that this is an issue that end users have a genuine
stake in the outcome.

> 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.
>
Again, I disagree. I support the Chair's leadership on the matter.

>
> 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._______________________________________________
> registration-issues-wg mailing list
> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190807/55e7d58c/attachment-0001.html>