[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Domain Name Promotion

[Phil Corwin]

Thanks Jeff.

On the substance, I personally favor ICANN efforts and expenditures to promote universal acceptance as lack thereof creates a technical obstacle to the full and intended use of new gTLDs. And I am open on whether further ICANN funds should be used to promote awareness of new gTLDs generally.

My concern is that opining on the use of First Round funds for such purposes in response to a particular request by the RySG is beyond the scope of this WG as set forth in its Charter, and your gut seems to lean that way as well.

Thanks for the update and I look forward to further feedback from the leadership team.

Best, Philip

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 11:42 AM
To: Alan Greenberg; Kurt Pritz; avri at apc.org
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Domain Name Promotion

All,

This has been a great discussion on the importance of outreach and awareness.  The subject of outreach and awareness for subsequent procedures is certainly within our scope (Work Track 1).  However, my gut which I will talk to the rest of the leadership team, is that proposing a policy which would retroactively apply to previously collected funds would be beyond our scope.

However, in theory commenting that the $X that ICANN originally committed/spent as part of the “Communications Plan” was insufficient both in terms of dollars and scope is within our mandate.  ICANN initially viewed this expenditure as a one-time spend before the 2012, whereas we could (in theory) recommend the establishment of a fund to be used for the purposes of promoting the awareness and acceptance of TLDs.

I am not advocating a position here, but just to give my opinion of the types of recommendations we could make if there is a consensus.

I will discuss this issue with the rest of the leadership team and give you our collective thoughts later this week.

Thanks again and keep these discussions going!

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman at valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw


From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 6:36 PM
To: Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt at kjpritz.com>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>; avri at apc.org<mailto:avri at apc.org>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Domain Name Promotion

Kurt,

To be clear, I am writing this as a member of the WG and not as the ALAC Chair,

I do not support your suggestion as I believe that it is FAR out of scope for this WG. If some WG members choose to follow your advice in their personal capacity, that is their business.

I also do not agree with your statement "Some of us were against the new gTLD program and others were not happy with the final policy or implementation. Does that mean they want to see the program fail? Of course not. The new gTLD program is the culmination of many years and many thousand people-hours of work." The only reason I had any support for the new gTLD program was because of IDNs, and since ICANN had no interest in opening a round just for IDNs, I reluctantly supported it (although I believed it was launched before it was ready for prime time). But my general lack of support does NOT imply I wanted it to fail. Linking not supporting the round with wanting it to fail puts those of us who had doubts in a inappropriately bad light.

The registry proposal you cite might have been better received if it had not linked it to a significant registry fee reduction. Universal acceptance is worthy of our support. Advertising new gTLDs less so in my mind. If you and the RySG would care to explain the use of the term "seed fund" by explaining where the further contributions were to come from PERHAPS there would be something to discuss.

Alan

At 02/04/2017 06:16 PM, Kurt Pritz wrote:

Hi Jeff, Avri, et al:

I saw that this has been published. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/diaz-to-atallah-et-al-14mar17-en.pdf

The reason I am writing is in reference to the proposal that: “ICANN create a fund, to be seeded with US$3M at start-up, to promote universal awareness of new gTLDs to the general Internet user community, and universal acceptance of new gTLDs across the Internet.”

In the past, when ICANN staff members have been asked in public fora to begin an effort to promote the use of domain names, the response has generally been that it is not ICANN’s role to promote the use of domain names and domain name registries.

To me, this is not an operations question; this is a policy question.

In the current environment, i.e., absent a policy statement, ICANN can easily proceed to take up the RySG recommendation, especially for this relatively small seed fund. I hope we all urge that ICANN do this.

However, if ICANN hesitates to take up an awareness campaign regarding the benefits of domain names (Including how they can be used and their efficacy as a strategic tool), then a policy statement could direct such an action.

ICANN is for two things, the allocation of domain names and IP addresses. Who else is to inform the largely ignorant public on the utility of domain names if not ICANN?

All of us argued about how best to introduce and govern domain name usage - but we are all in favor of domain name uptake and the safe and stable growth of the domain name industry. All of us show up at ICANN meetings to talk about the best way to delegate and register names. If we and ICANN are not for their usage - why be part of this?

Some of us were against the new gTLD program and others were not happy with the final policy or implementation. Does that mean they want to see the program fail? Of course not. The new gTLD program is the culmination of many years and many thousand people-hours of work.

With tools and resources for promoting public understanding of domain names readily available, I don’t see how ICANN (the staff or the community) can sit idly by.  With the cash surplus in hand, as Patton said, “we are at the right time in the right place with the right instrument,” to do something to fortify the domain name system and industry.

During the slow process of launching new TLDs, search, apps and social media became strong competition for domain name adoption. It is time for us champions of domain names to use the tools at our disposal, including a small portion of that excess application fee cash, to create public awareness about the domain name industry that we have created.

My recommendation is that this PDP working group should form a team to consider this issue and make a separate recommendation to the GNSO Council in a timely manner. A separate team is justifiable because this effects the previous as well as the next round. I also think the current PDP working group can be more nimble as compared to the effort necessary to start a new policy discussion.

That recommendation could simply be a statement that it is the role of ICANN to promote awareness of domain names and the benefits of competition and choice in the domain name industry.

We can show that we can act.

Kurt


________________
Kurt Pritz
kurt at kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt at kjpritz.com>
+1.310.400.4184
Skype: kjpritz




Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
         1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:KZvlGkL7E8WPimuu+FxvIxSnlUl3zi71EzIyzsIm7iZ7hANfLa6K5qbjaXRzZUdLQdKP/7QSPxIDNYcp3+wqMZPB5Hz9B/I0onizKmo3ELc1+ZbhLCGLeRuQRIlalgovvmW950njFGZvEQ9FLz/oAQ==
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
         ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028);

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature>
Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4769/14210 - Release Date: 03/30/17
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170404/8a384b13/attachment-0001.html>