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

Thu Aug 8 01:39:36 UTC 2019

Hello All,

Am in absolute agreement with Olivier's views.

Sala

On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, 10:50 pm Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, <ocl at gih.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Eduardo Diaz
> <eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com> <eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 7, 2019 8:56:14 AM
> *To:* CPWG <cpwg at icann.org> <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> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sala, long time no talk.
>>
>> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 04:12, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
>> 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
>> 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 listCPWG at icann.orghttps://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 listGTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190808/b1ca1057/attachment-0001.html>