I have been reading this thread and now feel compelled to add my 2 cents.
First, to the matter of the ALAC's advocacy for end user interest in the ICANN environment. I came to this fully vested in what I knoow not just from practice but as an active advocate that in regard to Internet matters, the single most important issue for the average Jamaican end user - in the ICT4D practice we use a label 'the grandmother in Claverty Cottage - is access. And access here devolves to mean infrastructure where it exists and secondly, the cost to access what exists. From the evidence, so-called Small Islands Developing States (SIDS) share these concerns. Since we have similar topography, are moving along the same developmental path and share service providers, it is easy to see these as shared concerns with our Caribbean cousins. These concerns and advocacy to improve them predate caucusing with ICANN interests. And, we are quite aware that these do not fit in the envelope of ICANN interests. But since we are here, we are always looking over the fence and around the corner for anything that could impact these clear and present challenges even as we look ahead to others that might develop if and when we overcome our access challenges. To be clear, we actively seek allies for this struggle; persons from similar backgrounds exhibiting similar challenges with shared outlook, interests and drive to get some useful thing done.
Let the record show that I fully support Evan's analysis and the position that emerged from that analysis; given our time and capacity, the At-Large in general and ALAC in particular must laser end user interests as our lodestar for action. That is not a recent or pulled-from-a-hat position. Read the R3 paper and you will see it there. On top of that, Evan has been a source of support for what I consider to be our - Jamaican and Caribbean - interests ever since we met. He is thoughtful, passionate on what he knows, and yes, provocative in his communiques. All of that goes well with me. He is and remains my friend.
So let talk Applicant Support. I co-chaired that WG, not because I thought a end user is in dire need of a TLD but I saw it as driving other matters that inure to the best interests of the end users I represent in the names and numbers policy development environment.
Like Evan, we have always known that TLD ownership does not in and of itself track well for end user interest. There is, however, what we consider a derivative interest. A stake in the game that is the Domain Name System can be a catalyst for all other interests. And a TLD ownership and/or operation by somebody from this side of empire - we couch it as MDCs and LDCs - would fit that goal. Any increase in TLD ownership among interests from my side of empire, especially if community-type engagement is part of the proposition, makes the use case for enabling content that potentiate a push/pull stimuli for the infrastructure buildout and lowered access cost that are high priority and interest to Jamaican internet end users.
Yes, Evan is right we don't have data to support this. But we're willing to take it on a wing and a prayer. [Just in case you line up to call me hypocrite, for the record, I'm not a praying man!] Are there developments that might provide more useful information? Absolutely! Are there other factors that might be more useful for exploitation to objective? Surely so. And, I am willing to reassess my position in light of all the new information, too!
Here's the other thing. We know these matters of access and cost of access are shared concerns of our SIDS cousins in the South Pacific as well as most of our African brethren. They also have other issues that might not be as impactful on us this side of the globe. But there is enough for us to make common cause in favour of support for Applicant Support.
Tijani earlier in the thread laid out succinctly the evidence from last time to demonstrate the missed objectives for Applicant Support. I endorse every piece of them. Now, on the record, I can tell you that in my view the At-Large's heightened concern for 'gaming' informed our position on the stringent conditions that emerged for access to Applicant Support. And was, unambiguously, contributory to this failure.
I'm sorry but there is a history to this. Everytime I read it, I recall from experience, heads of agreements pertaining development assistance in the diplomatic arena. It always seem that the fella seeking assistance must prove, a priori, he's not a crook. Without apology, that is always offensive to me. And rankles, especially if you know how this assistance game goes.
That language offered to forestall 'gaming' is still in play today on the SubPro WG deliberations. I will reject it on the record.
-Carlton
==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================
+1 Olivier, Maureen, Sala, Tijani
On "... imploring ALAC to concentrate its comments on those issues with demonstrable effect on end users (abuse, confusion, stability, etc)"
1. I try to be mindful of that what applies to me may not, whether in part or in full, applies to other end-users and vice versa; I consider the diversity of experiences and circumstances across the globe to be of great value to At-Large as a stakeholder group and something that requires constant management.
2. I am also concerned with the term "demonstrable effect" insofar as we cannot disregard something simply because we don't know of it exists and "etc" needs to be carefully and exhaustively described.
Justine -----
Thank you Olivier. So true...Yes, demonstrable effect on end users depends on which end-users we are talking about. The Geonames affect end-users in those regions where using the name of their city for commercial purposes represents an agression. And as I said in a previous mail, At-Large must consider the interest of all end-users including those in underserved regions and communities.
Tijani
Le 7 août 2019 à 22:49, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <
ocl@gih.com> a écrit :
Hello all,
unfortunately, I am not 100% aligned on this and am rather more
cautious:
"...
imploring ALAC to concentrate its comments on those issues with
demonstrable effect on end users (abuse, confusion, stability,
etc)"
When I read this, I interpret is that
it considers the "end user" as being a simple, definable entity.
In reality, this is unfortunately not the case. End users have
different priorities depending on what country they are from and
the At-Large needs to tap input from every place on the planet,
not just the vocal ones whose interests are "abuse, confusion,
stability, etc."
Yes, there are many end users in the world, and no doubt in our
community, that have these very concerns as a priority. But there
are also many others who have both a different political outlook,
but also priorities and understanding of the world. Consider the
importance of a ccTLD or a gTLD. You, living in a country where
freedom of speech is taken for granted, might not be able to grasp
the political importance of a TLD in some parts of the world.
Having been at the heart of conflicts regarding .MK and .PS, I can
tell you that even though this was a long time ago, it got people
in the street to be really upset. When .PS was allocated, some
people in the street were celebrating whilst other people in the
street were very upset.
OK - so they're ccTLDs. Well, consider the issue of Geo Regions
now. It's not about abuse, or confusion or stability. It has the
potential to tap into people's identity - whether that is
cultural, or tribal, or traditional. It is way more complex than
an issue of abuse, confusion or stability. For some people, it
might be baffling that there is so much emphasis about Geo Regions
because they don't see it as an important topic. For others, a
region's name might equate to an immediate death in the family
through a local conflict; a sense of pride to be part of that
region, and a strong sense of hate towards any corporation that
might use that region's name in a banal product. I also repeat the
concern that there are hundreds of cultures/tribes in the world
that have a tradition of oral history and that need to be given
the chance of being provided with their own TLD as a matter of
survival. That is affecting a small percentage of people on the
planet, but I believe we have a duty towards them too.
So I question calling the criterion "a demonstrable effect on end
users", because this means it needs to have an effect on your
average end user, and the world is not made up of average people,
but of individuals. If a topic coming before the CPWG has an
effect on one person, I'd like to hear from that person, bottom
up, and not be told top down that "this has no demonstrable effect
on end users" especially if this determination is
mechanical/algorithmic.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
ps. don't get me started on the credibility of At-Large in ICANN.
I am of the view that ICANN would have no credibility without
At-Large.
On 07/08/2019 22:31, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
Agree completely!!!!!!!!!
Jonathan Zuck
Executive Director
Innovators Network Foundation
I recommend that we re-focus our policy magnifying
glass towards ICANN policies as suggested by Evan
in a previous email: "...
imploring ALAC to concentrate its comments on
those issues with demonstrable effect on end
users (abuse, confusion, stability, etc)"
So, I suggest that as part of the way the CPWG
works today, we frame any future policy work by
applying these criteria first and decide if we
want to comment, refer it to other WGs or do
nothing at all.
Let's talk about this during today's call.
-ed
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:43
AM Evan Leibovitch <
evan@telly.org>
wrote:
Hi Sala, long time no talk.
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.
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.) 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.
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?
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
_______________________________________________
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.
--
NOTICE: This
email may contain information which is confidential and/or
subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of
the named addressee only. If you are not the intended
recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of
this email. If you have received this email by mistake,
please notify the sender and delete this message
immediately.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
GTLD-WG mailing list
GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.orghttps://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.
Tijani BEN JEMAA
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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._______________________________________________
GTLD-WG mailing list
GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
_______________________________________________
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.