Hi, If there was a 2nd round (2026) gTLD applicant that has aligned their application precisely with RFC 8890: a gTLD that doesn’t put the registrant but the internet user (“end user”) front and center: would the list be interested in learning about it? Because in the existing denominations of the DNS nobody cares about the “end user” – ICANN cares about registries, registries care about registrars and registrars care about registrants. The “end user” (internet user) is somehow readily available consumption mass that will willingly endure whatever they get exposed to (I am being sarcastic here): For example scam sites, fake sites, parked (monetized) sites, phishing sites, overly complicated URLs, etc. Regards, Alexander ___________________________________________________________________ Alexander Schubert LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert U.S. +1(202)684-6806 Germany +49(030)8643-7863 From: David Mackey via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 10:35 PM To: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: cpwg@icann.org Subject: [CPWG] Re: The Internet is for end users – RFC 8890 (2020) This document is a great find Christopher! Thanks for bringing to everyone's attention. I've been aware of the document since about September 2020, but it hasn't received much attention in the ICANN community. One of the potential weaknesses of the document is Section 5, IANA Considerations ... 5. IANA Considerations This document has no IANA actions. Cheers David On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 2:45 PM lists--- via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> > wrote: Good evening: At last week’s CPWG meeting, I mentioned the existence of this document (10 pp). It can be found at: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8890> https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8890 In general I find it is an admirable statement of intent on behalf of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), although it does not go into how its aspirations might be realised. Thus it does not amount to a standard or a policy statement. In the words of the principal author (in an e-mail to myself): <<RFC 8890 was an explanation of the IAB's thinking regarding how the IETF community should engage with other communities that its work affects. There were not concrete follow-on steps, beyond a continuing effort to refine how we engage. This has proven relevant especially in policy-adjacent efforts such as the AI Preferences Working Group.>> For present purposes I suggest that we leave it at that, particularly in light of the ICANN and CPWG work loads for the coming months. However, I do think that there is an overhanging question about how the user community engages with the identification, preparation and governance of the Internet Standards that are the RFCs. Regards Christopher Wilkinson (Posted to CPWG mailing List, 2 September 2025) On 27 Aug 2025, at 18:32, ICANN At-Large Staff via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> > wrote _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org <mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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.