My comments are inline:
In my many years of being involved in ICANN, I have rarely seen my point of view so mischaracterised. The very subject line of this thread indicates IMO a significant lack of grasp of my core point and indeed a substantial mis-framing of the debate I had hoped to initiate.
Let me be clear: I am neither for improvement of nor scrapping Applicant Support.
Noted.
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. We should be seen to be supporting the ALAC and yes it is within its mandate. Oliver's historical overview clearly lays out the ALAC's consistent contribution.
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.
My response to "improve or scrap?" is "it doesn't matter".
That is the point I was making on last week's call, not that we change our opinion but that we simply withdraw and assert no opinion. 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 and even if they are not aware, that is where the ALAC has to make a judgment call. Otherwise what is the point?
Never once in the recent debate have I advocated that AS was inherently wrong.
Noted, but your questioning the credibility of ALAC re AS is communicating the opposite. Glad you are clarifying your position.
I just question our continued focus on a question that -- given the new facts and evidence at hand since the rollout of that gTLD round -- has demonstrated no positive or negative consequences for end users.
It does not matter, the ALAC must continue to speak up and be verbal about end users support whether we are seen to be making a dent.
My advocacy here is for ALAC to be selective in addressing only issues in which end-users have a genuine stake in the outcomes.
I disagree and say that this is an issue that end users have a genuine stake in the outcome.
I assert that this issue (Applicant support) is only the first identified ALAC issue in which end users have no justification to claim interest. I have commented elsewhere on a second issue of this type, geoname TLDs, as chapter 2 of the theme of "not my circus, not my monkeys". They're not our fights, and we demean our credibility elsewhere when we assert otherwise.
Again, I disagree. I support the Chair's leadership on the matter.
_______________________________________________
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._______________________________________________
registration-issues-wg mailing list
registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________
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.