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

Wed Aug 7 22:05:10 UTC 2019

Doesn't need to be Average end user but should be end user experiences

Jonathan Zuck
Executive Director
Innovators Network Foundation
www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org>

________________________________
From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 2:49:34 PM
To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>; Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com>; CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] New gTLD Applicant Support - improve it, or scrap it?

Hello all,

unfortunately, I am not 100% aligned on this and am rather more cautious:

"... imploring ALAC to concentrate its comments on those issues with demonstrable effect on end users (abuse, confusion, stability, etc)"

When I read this, I interpret is that it considers the "end user" as being a simple, definable entity. In reality, this is unfortunately not the case. End users have different priorities depending on what country they are from and the At-Large needs to tap input from every place on the planet, not just the vocal ones whose interests are "abuse, confusion, stability, etc."
Yes, there are many end users in the world, and no doubt in our community, that have these very concerns as a priority. But there are also many others who have both a different political outlook, but also priorities and understanding of the world. Consider the importance of a ccTLD or a gTLD. You, living in a country where freedom of speech is taken for granted, might not be able to grasp the political importance of a TLD in some parts of the world. Having been at the heart of conflicts regarding .MK and .PS, I can tell you that even though this was a long time ago, it got people in the street to be really upset. When .PS was allocated, some people in the street were celebrating whilst other people in the street were very upset.
OK - so they're ccTLDs. Well, consider the issue of Geo Regions now. It's not about abuse, or confusion or stability. It has the potential to tap into people's identity - whether that is cultural, or tribal, or traditional. It is way more complex than an issue of abuse, confusion or stability. For some people, it might be baffling that there is so much emphasis about Geo Regions because they don't see it as an important topic. For others, a region's name might equate to an immediate death in the family through a local conflict; a sense of pride to be part of that region, and a strong sense of hate towards any corporation that might use that region's name in a banal product. I also repeat the concern that there are hundreds of cultures/tribes in the world that have a tradition of oral history and that need to be given the chance of being provided with their own TLD as a matter of survival. That is affecting a small percentage of people on the planet, but I believe we have a duty towards them too.

So I question calling the criterion "a demonstrable effect on end users", because this means it needs to have an effect on your average end user, and the world is not made up of average people, but of individuals. If a topic coming before the CPWG has an effect on one person, I'd like to hear from that person, bottom up, and not be told top down that "this has no demonstrable effect on end users" especially if this determination is mechanical/algorithmic.

Kindest regards,

Olivier

ps. don't get me started on the credibility of At-Large in ICANN. I am of the view that ICANN would have no credibility without At-Large.

On 07/08/2019 22:31, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
Agree completely!!!!!!!!!

Jonathan Zuck
Executive Director
Innovators Network Foundation
www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org>

________________________________
From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com><mailto:eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 8:56:14 AM
To: CPWG <cpwg at icann.org><mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<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.

--
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<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.

_______________________________________________
GTLD-WG mailing list
GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg

Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
_______________________________________________
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/20190807/0034e9bd/attachment-0001.html>