[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs

[Evan Leibovitch]

On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 at 07:59, <h.raiche at internode.on.net> wrote:

>
> These are important issues for ALAC - issues we have expressed concern
> over before and should continue to do so.
>

Are all these really important issues for ALAC? That is, are they important
to non-registrant end users? Really?

Before ALAC starts another iteration of fighting the battles of others (who
are already well-spoken for within ICANN), it needs to do some important
triage and focus its concern on the small number of issues that impact our
(only) bylaw-mandated constituency.


*1. Assumptions: Your paper assumes that the next round will take the form
> of one large open round. There is no consensus in there PDP about moving in
> that direction.*
>

Why do end-users care about whether there is one large round or a bunch of
smaller ones? Why would end-users care about various categories of TLDs
unless there were some strict rules that engendered trust that the TLD
string must be related to all of its subdomains?

*2. Volumes: Your paper proposes an arbitrarily large volume of new
> applications, all at once in a single window. That is not a model that I
> would share. *


There is a reasonable case to be made that too many TLDs, especially
without any forced link between the TLD string and its subdomains, leads to
consumer confusion and further diminishing trust. I would posit that this
is the only issue on which ALAC has legitimate standing.


>    1.
>
>    *Outsourcing:* The paper is not quite consistent: on the one hand one
>    has 'as little as possible will be outsourced' and on the other hand one
>    has 'evaluation and objection processing' may be outsourced 'to expert
>    firms'
>
>
*Why should end users care?* This issue might be of grave concern to
registry applicants, but has absolutely no effect on end users at all.
ALAC's meddling in issues that don't affect its constituency erode its
already-weak authority within ICANN and offers legitimacy to those who
questions its relevance to the overall decision-making processes.

4, *Costs and Application Support*: The paper is silent on application
> support, whereas in the light of the meagre outcome in 2012 in this
> respect, the eyes of all are upon ICANN to effectively implement a workable
> and results oriented application support programme. This is a question of
> prioritization, in time and in the budget. Ploint 1, above,  refers.
>

Yes, once upon a time ALAC cared a great deal about such issues that were
only really relevant to a very small number of potential TLD applicants.
But as we discovered through the last go-round, the effect on
non-registrant end-users of the failure of the Applicant Support program
was .... absolutely none at all. We must learn from that mistake.

As for general costs, end-users have a stake in ensuring that registries
are stable and secure once operating, but they have little interest in the
prices or processes of actually delegating or procuring the strings.

There were many teachable lessons in the last round .... both for ICANN and
for ALAC. All eyes are on us too. If ALAC doesn't learn from its mistakes,
and continues to get involved in ICANN issues that are irrelevant to
end-users while doing disservice to issues that matter greatly, it will
continue its slide into irrelevance.

All other constituencies have voices elsewhere. But the end user has no
other voice but us. Let's use that voice strategically and wisely.

- Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190707/149ad3ca/attachment.html>