[CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim yet again....

[Evan Leibovitch]

I didn't see Holly's original email until seeing Olivier's response.

I don't think my proposal is incompatible with the issue Holly raised,
indeed I had no intention for CPWG's work to come to a halt while this
other WG was going on.

gTLDs not resolving is as much of an end-user issue as could exist IMO.
It's an issue not only of the stability of the DNS, but also -- relevant to
us -- public perception of and trust in the DNS. Then again, some here may
recall the first At-Large Summit in Mexico City, from which the resulting
communiqué said to go slow on even the FIRST new round without addressing
serious At-Large concerns. That communiqué, delivered to ICANN leadership
by the ATLAS 1 co-chairs -- myself and Wolf Ludwig -- was notable in its
complete lack of attention, response or even acknowledgement of receipt.

Part of the reason that I think that clarity of purpose is so vital for
At-Large is because most of ICANN's other policy constituencies have long
had their core objectives laid out quite clearly (whether documented or
not). With the exception of the other ACs, GNSO's noncommercial
constituencies and the IPC, constituency objectives are related to
maximizing revenue and minimizing accountability (which in a contract-based
world means minimizing liability). Arguably ICANN's own motivation for
expansion is also revenue-based, but it doesn't help that the GNSO can
compel it to move forward with gTLD expansion even should the GAC or ALAC
vehemently oppose.

In any case, again I would imagine (and indeed hope) that ALAC's response
to a second round -- as well as any other policy action -- would take place
in parallel with what I proposed.

As for this:

On 01/09/2023 05:30, Holly Raiche via CPWG wrote:
>
> (I was involved in the first discussion and noted the complete lack of
> response - do I become involved in a second go???)
>
>
I have no useful answer because I don't even recall the first discussion. I
can't speak for the past, and I can't guarantee there will be sufficient
uptake at the Hamburg meeting but I will certainly give it my best shot. I
would note that the WG need not be large and indeed would likely work best
if it was small and nimble.

- Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20230901/abdbc3ee/attachment.html>