Good evening :
Our recent discussion of Göran Marby's comment at the IGF gives rise, to my mind, to several considerations.
The GNSO Sub Pro report on new gTLDs (pp 400+, see Annexes
I & J) was issued in January 2021, nearly two years ago. It did not respond to the issues raised by the Dissenting Opinions posted. ALAC has also sent to the Board extensive and detailed Advice on behalf of At Large, requiring several changes in the PDP Report's
policy recommendations. Neither the Board nor GNSO have replied to or acted upon the ALAC Advice, albeit available on the ICANN website, translated into all our working languages.
Consequently I consider that the proposed ODP procedure is premature. I am sure that when the outstanding requests for amendments and other criticisms of the PDP Report have been taken fully into account, the
eventual ODP work would be substantially changed. Meanwhile the announced ODP risks wasting a lot of our time.
Returning to the IGF and Göran's comment, I suggest that the context IS highly relevant, in relation to ICANN's obligations to the international community, in several respects.
The international, global, interest in the DNS is NOT limited to IDNs. But the PDP Report provides minimal extension of protection to geographical names. Specifically for Africa, there are large populations in vast areas who are currently restricted to a single
local ccTLD.
In large parts of Asia, idem.
The previous Round of new gTLDs was very largely engrossed with additional English language names. That enhanced, and did not attenuate, the English language bias in the DNS. It has also been to a large extent an economic failure.
I have yet to hear any explanation or apology from the then Board Chair or CEO. We are still dealing with the fallout: lack of universal acceptance and concentration of the Registry/Registrar business through vertical integration and the acquisition of otherwise non-viable Registries. This was foreseeable at the time, and not acted upon by GNSO or the Board.
Furthermore, should one wish to achieve the global balance, hinted at by Göran Marby's remarks, one would need significant Applicant Support, not only financial but also technical and human resources. The PDP was having none of this. If applicant support is as limited next time as it was last time, it risks comparable failure. This is also addressed in the ALAC Advice.
Regards
On 3 Dec 2022, at 18:39, Jonathan Zuck via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________Of course, in the context of “new round enthusiasts” trying to motivate others, and using the prospect of IDNs to do so, it’s also understandable and carries with it the risks Jeff outlined.
From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>
Date: Friday, December 2, 2022 at 1:36 PM
To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>, Avri <avri@doria.org>, Bill Jouris <b_jouris@yahoo.com>
Cc: Cpwg <cpwg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] 2022 IGF & New gTLD QuestionSounds like Michele and I are in agreement again this year.....wow, everyone remember 2022 :)
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
+1.202.549.5079
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@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.