On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, 9:43 am Evan Leibovitch, <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hi Sala, long time no talk.
Yes, we need a drink :) Comments are inline below.
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 04:12, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
My challenge is whether a non-registrant end-user interest exists in this
either way, and whether ALAC has credibility to pass judgement on the program at all as part of its bylaw mandate.
Of course, the ALAC has credibility, were'nt you a part of ALAC.
Indeed I was, even Vice-Chair for a few years. That's how I got close enough to understand that there is indeed a challenge of credibility. A serious one that impairs our voice when we speak on issues that *do* effect end-users.
The issues affect end users.
If we are asked "upon what do you base you assertion that end users want XXX policy?", we struggle. In reality the 15 ALAC reps are making judgment calls regarding what they think end users want, based on really little more than an educated guess. (the model of ALAC members soliciting RALOs that then solicit their ALSs on policy issues is rarely in play.)
Then this can be easily rectified. And a gentle nudge to encourage this. Those who may oppose our PoV know this, and have a valid point when they
challenge the basis upon which we choose our sides. Often our educated guesses are good ones but that's still all they are, devoid of real research of what end-users want/need from ICANN.
I hear you. Then if empirical research is warranted, there is nothing stopping the staff from putting this together or using the At Large budget to hire a consultant to do this.
IMO, this is an issue of interest to other ICANN constituencies but the
end-user constituency has no stake in how it is resolved.
I disagree. The end user has a stake as was with the Amazon scenario etc.
Please elaborate. Exactly what stake does the end-user have?
Do you really think end-users care who owns .amazon? Upon what do you base
this assertion?
ALAC members by virtue of being elected are able to give qualified opinions of their knowledge of their region and this is based on interactions within their communities. I suggest the LACRALO representatives are better qualified to respond to the views of end users from their region just as we in APRALO are better versed to give views from our region.
When I asked around to people I knew who weren't techies or policy wonks, there was actually a general sentiment that it didn't matter, and if they had to choose .amazon should go to the book company and .amazonas should go to the governments if they really thought it was needed.
I suspect that if we solicited public opinion, globally more people would find it more useful if the bookstore owned the TLD. Again, what we might guess with an NGO mindset might conflict with what end-users really want. So when we stake a position and are challenged, upon what do we base our PoV? Credibility challenge.
The question at hand is not "is Applicant support worthwhile" but "do end
users care if there is applicant support or not".
Of course they do
Evidence? Rationale? Please, tell me exactly why they care. Not "should they care" but "do they care". I really want to know the reasoning behind the assertion.
even if they are not aware, that is where the ALAC has to make a judgment call.
Again, what is rationale for why ALAC *must* speak up even if its constituency has no interest in the issue? Do we speak merely for the sake of speaking?
Noted, but your questioning the credibility of ALAC
As Olivier and Maureen and anyone else active in ALAC can attest, the credibility challenge comes from all over ICANN. I am trying to address it by imploring ALAC to concentrate its comments on those issues with demonstrable effect on end users (abuse, confusion, stability, etc)
- Evan