New gTLD Applicant Support - improve it, or scrap it?
Dear colleagues, on last week's CPWG call, a particularly vigorous discussion started regarding gTLD subsequent procedures, with a particular focus on applicant support. The ALAC has been on record in the past round as fully supporting the concept and implementation of an Applicant Support program for applicants that might not otherwise have the funding capability to pay the hefty application fee required when filing an application for a new gTLD. For your information, please be so kind to find a few Statements from the ALAC about Applicant Support: Publish Date 1. Title 2. 31 Jul 2014 Report: Supporting the Domain Name Industry in Underserved Regions <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/6711> Topic(s): *Contracted Party Agreements <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/contracted-party-agreements>, Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Reviews/Improvements <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/reviews-improvements>* 3. 10 Jan 2012 New gTLD Applicant Support Program: Financial Assistance <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8041> Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* 4. 20 Dec 2011 ALAC Statement on the Preliminary Support Implementation Program <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8071> Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* 5. 4 Aug 2011 GAC/ALAC Statement on Applicant Support <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8261> Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* 6. 7 Dec 2010 Cartagena Statement of the African ICANN community about the Support for new gTLD applicants <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8581> Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>* 7. 24 Jun 2010 African ICANN Community Publishes Statement on Support for New gTLD Applicants <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8711> Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* **On last week's call -- see https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg we heard several calls for changing this long standing ALAC line and whilst some opposed changing the At-Large position, there was also significant support for changing it. In short, the argument that was developed against Applicant Support was that the financial support proposed to applicants only covered the application fee that was only a small subset of the costs of running a gTLD - so one could argue that applicants risk being set-up to fail. Second, there was concern that there were so few applications for applicant support in the previous ground and thirdly, the guidelines for accepting support applications were so tight to reduce the possibility of gaming, that they were unachievable. I recommend that you read the appropriate transcript that is linked from the agenda on https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg -- but I would urge those who developed their points, in favour of continuing the ALAC view to improve applicant support and those in favour of scrapping Applicant Support, to make their points known here. My paraphrased summary definitely doesn't do justice to all of the points that were put across during the call so I apologise if I have not gotten its interpretation all correct. The conversation was just too large and too fundamental for the small amount of time we had available on the call. Kindest regards, Olivier
Thanks Olivier A really good summary of where we got to in what is a difficult issue. My take: maybe we should think more broadly about what we mean by ‘support’. I think where we got to is that monetary support for the application only is a good thing, but not sufficient. Part of the larger issue was an outreach program - just to inform about what new gTLDs are, etc, and what help - for the application fee - is available. Any perhaps the ‘support' should widen - both in information available, but in a serious look at the applicants - and whether they are equipped to support a new gTLD. Next question, of course, is where the monetary support would come from, and circumstances in which it would make sense to provide it. (so maybe support could be available but on stringent terms to those most likely to successfully support a new gTLD? All up for debate Holly
On Aug 7, 2019, at 7:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
on last week's CPWG call, a particularly vigorous discussion started regarding gTLD subsequent procedures, with a particular focus on applicant support.
The ALAC has been on record in the past round as fully supporting the concept and implementation of an Applicant Support program for applicants that might not otherwise have the funding capability to pay the hefty application fee required when filing an application for a new gTLD.
For your information, please be so kind to find a few Statements from the ALAC about Applicant Support:
Publish Date Title 31 Jul 2014 Report: Supporting the Domain Name Industry in Underserved Regions <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/6711> Topic(s): Contracted Party Agreements <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/contracted-party-agreements>, Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Reviews/Improvements <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/reviews-improvements> 10 Jan 2012 New gTLD Applicant Support Program: Financial Assistance <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8041> Topic(s): Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances> 20 Dec 2011 ALAC Statement on the Preliminary Support Implementation Program <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8071> Topic(s): Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances> 4 Aug 2011 GAC/ALAC Statement on Applicant Support <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8261> Topic(s): Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances> 7 Dec 2010 Cartagena Statement of the African ICANN community about the Support for new gTLD applicants <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8581> Topic(s): Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds> 24 Jun 2010 African ICANN Community Publishes Statement on Support for New gTLD Applicants <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8711> Topic(s): Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>
On last week's call -- see https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg <https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg> we heard several calls for changing this long standing ALAC line and whilst some opposed changing the At-Large position, there was also significant support for changing it.
In short, the argument that was developed against Applicant Support was that the financial support proposed to applicants only covered the application fee that was only a small subset of the costs of running a gTLD - so one could argue that applicants risk being set-up to fail. Second, there was concern that there were so few applications for applicant support in the previous ground and thirdly, the guidelines for accepting support applications were so tight to reduce the possibility of gaming, that they were unachievable.
I recommend that you read the appropriate transcript that is linked from the agenda on https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg <https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg> -- but I would urge those who developed their points, in favour of continuing the ALAC view to improve applicant support and those in favour of scrapping Applicant Support, to make their points known here. My paraphrased summary definitely doesn't do justice to all of the points that were put across during the call so I apologise if I have not gotten its interpretation all correct. The conversation was just too large and too fundamental for the small amount of time we had available on the call.
Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ 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.
Underserved regions - particularly small islands developing states in the Pacific - are going to be a long-time coming to be truly ready for a new round of gTLDs regardless of how much support they may be offered. At the moment, readiness overall is lacking when the cost of the internet is so expensive, despite competition already on some of the larger island countries. But domain use is not promoted and geonames would not be an issue, because they are currently so unaware of what geonames are. Expertise in "Registries, Registrars and Registrants 101" is difficult to ascertain in a region such as the Pacific when there are very few active participants in ICANN despite the opportunities offered to them through ICANN Fellowships. Many return home and do what they can in their communities, but they are not the ones with the decision-making influence to make the changes required to insist that there are more people trained to take Internet and domain growth to another level. They are too far behind the eight-ball to even be contemplating new gTLDs. And at the same time, from the perspective of our regional NGO - PICISOC - and the individual ALSes that are in only a few of the island countries - attempting to do outreach when face to face is too expensive and online training programmes are not going to reach those that really need it. On the ground, many of them are still just trying to get affordable access. For them that is the priority so that privacy and cybersecurity issues that worry the rest of the world today are absolutely meaningless to end-users who don't know what we are talking about. If governments are pushing for development, there is usually some political gain as the underlying goal. Many see it as a cash cow - lots of people wanting to use the Internet and willing to pay whatever is required, to get access to speedy and quality broadband. But there have been no promises on our island that when we get the cable connected mid-2020 that we will get faster affordable access. However, with the potential of Internet by cable from one company and by satellite from another, this does finally offer some competition - and a major factor in the development of Internet opportunities for those with entrepreneurial know-how. But we still have a long way to go. On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, 2:06 PM Holly Raiche, <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Thanks Olivier
A really good summary of where we got to in what is a difficult issue.
My take: maybe we should think more broadly about what we mean by ‘support’. I think where we got to is that monetary support for the application only is a good thing, but not sufficient. Part of the larger issue was an outreach program - just to inform about what new gTLDs are, etc, and what help - for the application fee - is available. Any perhaps the ‘support' should widen - both in information available, but in a serious look at the applicants - and whether they are equipped to support a new gTLD.
Next question, of course, is where the monetary support would come from, and circumstances in which it would make sense to provide it. (so maybe support could be available but on stringent terms to those most likely to successfully support a new gTLD?
All up for debate
Holly
On Aug 7, 2019, at 7:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
on last week's CPWG call, a particularly vigorous discussion started regarding gTLD subsequent procedures, with a particular focus on applicant support.
The ALAC has been on record in the past round as fully supporting the concept and implementation of an Applicant Support program for applicants that might not otherwise have the funding capability to pay the hefty application fee required when filing an application for a new gTLD.
For your information, please be so kind to find a few Statements from the ALAC about Applicant Support:
Publish Date
1. Title 2. 31 Jul 2014
Report: Supporting the Domain Name Industry in Underserved Regions <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/6711>
Topic(s): *Contracted Party Agreements <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/contracted-party-agreements>, Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Reviews/Improvements <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/reviews-improvements>* 3. 10 Jan 2012
New gTLD Applicant Support Program: Financial Assistance <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8041>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* 4. 20 Dec 2011
ALAC Statement on the Preliminary Support Implementation Program <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8071>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* 5. 4 Aug 2011
GAC/ALAC Statement on Applicant Support <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8261>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* 6. 7 Dec 2010
Cartagena Statement of the African ICANN community about the Support for new gTLD applicants <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8581>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>* 7. 24 Jun 2010
African ICANN Community Publishes Statement on Support for New gTLD Applicants <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8711>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>*
On last week's call -- see https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg we heard several calls for changing this long standing ALAC line and whilst some opposed changing the At-Large position, there was also significant support for changing it.
In short, the argument that was developed against Applicant Support was that the financial support proposed to applicants only covered the application fee that was only a small subset of the costs of running a gTLD - so one could argue that applicants risk being set-up to fail. Second, there was concern that there were so few applications for applicant support in the previous ground and thirdly, the guidelines for accepting support applications were so tight to reduce the possibility of gaming, that they were unachievable.
I recommend that you read the appropriate transcript that is linked from the agenda on https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg -- but I would urge those who developed their points, in favour of continuing the ALAC view to improve applicant support and those in favour of scrapping Applicant Support, to make their points known here. My paraphrased summary definitely doesn't do justice to all of the points that were put across during the call so I apologise if I have not gotten its interpretation all correct.
The conversation was just too large and too fundamental for the small amount of time we had available on the call.
Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
Thanks Maureen That clarifies a lot in this debate. First - noting Evan’s point - are new GTLDs of benefit anyway. And if the answer is yes, then benefit to whom, and if to end users, then what support (education, finances, etc) would help - or not. As Olivier said, this is a big debate. Holly
On Aug 7, 2019, at 11:45 AM, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Underserved regions - particularly small islands developing states in the Pacific - are going to be a long-time coming to be truly ready for a new round of gTLDs regardless of how much support they may be offered. At the moment, readiness overall is lacking when the cost of the internet is so expensive, despite competition already on some of the larger island countries. But domain use is not promoted and geonames would not be an issue, because they are currently so unaware of what geonames are.
Expertise in "Registries, Registrars and Registrants 101" is difficult to ascertain in a region such as the Pacific when there are very few active participants in ICANN despite the opportunities offered to them through ICANN Fellowships. Many return home and do what they can in their communities, but they are not the ones with the decision-making influence to make the changes required to insist that there are more people trained to take Internet and domain growth to another level. They are too far behind the eight-ball to even be contemplating new gTLDs.
And at the same time, from the perspective of our regional NGO - PICISOC - and the individual ALSes that are in only a few of the island countries - attempting to do outreach when face to face is too expensive and online training programmes are not going to reach those that really need it. On the ground, many of them are still just trying to get affordable access. For them that is the priority so that privacy and cybersecurity issues that worry the rest of the world today are absolutely meaningless to end-users who don't know what we are talking about.
If governments are pushing for development, there is usually some political gain as the underlying goal. Many see it as a cash cow - lots of people wanting to use the Internet and willing to pay whatever is required, to get access to speedy and quality broadband. But there have been no promises on our island that when we get the cable connected mid-2020 that we will get faster affordable access. However, with the potential of Internet by cable from one company and by satellite from another, this does finally offer some competition - and a major factor in the development of Internet opportunities for those with entrepreneurial know-how. But we still have a long way to go.
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, 2:06 PM Holly Raiche, <h.raiche@internode.on.net <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: Thanks Olivier
A really good summary of where we got to in what is a difficult issue.
My take: maybe we should think more broadly about what we mean by ‘support’. I think where we got to is that monetary support for the application only is a good thing, but not sufficient. Part of the larger issue was an outreach program - just to inform about what new gTLDs are, etc, and what help - for the application fee - is available. Any perhaps the ‘support' should widen - both in information available, but in a serious look at the applicants - and whether they are equipped to support a new gTLD.
Next question, of course, is where the monetary support would come from, and circumstances in which it would make sense to provide it. (so maybe support could be available but on stringent terms to those most likely to successfully support a new gTLD?
All up for debate
Holly
On Aug 7, 2019, at 7:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
on last week's CPWG call, a particularly vigorous discussion started regarding gTLD subsequent procedures, with a particular focus on applicant support.
The ALAC has been on record in the past round as fully supporting the concept and implementation of an Applicant Support program for applicants that might not otherwise have the funding capability to pay the hefty application fee required when filing an application for a new gTLD.
For your information, please be so kind to find a few Statements from the ALAC about Applicant Support:
Publish Date Title 31 Jul 2014 Report: Supporting the Domain Name Industry in Underserved Regions <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/6711> Topic(s): Contracted Party Agreements <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/contracted-party-agreements>, Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Reviews/Improvements <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/reviews-improvements> 10 Jan 2012 New gTLD Applicant Support Program: Financial Assistance <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8041> Topic(s): Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances> 20 Dec 2011 ALAC Statement on the Preliminary Support Implementation Program <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8071> Topic(s): Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances> 4 Aug 2011 GAC/ALAC Statement on Applicant Support <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8261> Topic(s): Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances> 7 Dec 2010 Cartagena Statement of the African ICANN community about the Support for new gTLD applicants <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8581> Topic(s): Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds> 24 Jun 2010 African ICANN Community Publishes Statement on Support for New gTLD Applicants <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8711> Topic(s): Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>
On last week's call -- see https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg <https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg> we heard several calls for changing this long standing ALAC line and whilst some opposed changing the At-Large position, there was also significant support for changing it.
In short, the argument that was developed against Applicant Support was that the financial support proposed to applicants only covered the application fee that was only a small subset of the costs of running a gTLD - so one could argue that applicants risk being set-up to fail. Second, there was concern that there were so few applications for applicant support in the previous ground and thirdly, the guidelines for accepting support applications were so tight to reduce the possibility of gaming, that they were unachievable.
I recommend that you read the appropriate transcript that is linked from the agenda on https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg <https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg> -- but I would urge those who developed their points, in favour of continuing the ALAC view to improve applicant support and those in favour of scrapping Applicant Support, to make their points known here. My paraphrased summary definitely doesn't do justice to all of the points that were put across during the call so I apologise if I have not gotten its interpretation all correct. The conversation was just too large and too fundamental for the small amount of time we had available on the call.
Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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 <mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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 <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
Thanks Holly I think yes new gtlds will no doubt benefit underserved regions eventually - when they ever get the opportunity to use and experience what the Internet has to offer. But there is no urgency when underserved communities are being targeted for support especially when they do not have the wherewithal to do anything with it. There is a lot more focused outreach by ICANN required before they can even attempt such a venture. Just giving them money to help put a proposal forward is like throwing it into a furnace. Do you know how much donor money goes down the drain on unsuccessful and unfinished development projects?? But governments are in charge there. Successes, usually by passionate and committed individuals, are rare But that is not saying that there were no groups from underserved regions who did not already attempt, albeit in vain, to get past the portals of acceptance in the last round. We already came across them in an earlier SubPro study. They may try again with a little help if there is a new round, but they will be better armed after their previous harrowing experience. They weren't from the Pacific. On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, 3:57 PM Holly Raiche, <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Thanks Maureen
That clarifies a lot in this debate.
First - noting Evan’s point - are new GTLDs of benefit anyway.
And if the answer is yes, then benefit to whom, and if to end users, then what support (education, finances, etc) would help - or not.
As Olivier said, this is a big debate.
Holly
On Aug 7, 2019, at 11:45 AM, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Underserved regions - particularly small islands developing states in the Pacific - are going to be a long-time coming to be truly ready for a new round of gTLDs regardless of how much support they may be offered. At the moment, readiness overall is lacking when the cost of the internet is so expensive, despite competition already on some of the larger island countries. But domain use is not promoted and geonames would not be an issue, because they are currently so unaware of what geonames are.
Expertise in "Registries, Registrars and Registrants 101" is difficult to ascertain in a region such as the Pacific when there are very few active participants in ICANN despite the opportunities offered to them through ICANN Fellowships. Many return home and do what they can in their communities, but they are not the ones with the decision-making influence to make the changes required to insist that there are more people trained to take Internet and domain growth to another level. They are too far behind the eight-ball to even be contemplating new gTLDs.
And at the same time, from the perspective of our regional NGO - PICISOC - and the individual ALSes that are in only a few of the island countries - attempting to do outreach when face to face is too expensive and online training programmes are not going to reach those that really need it. On the ground, many of them are still just trying to get affordable access. For them that is the priority so that privacy and cybersecurity issues that worry the rest of the world today are absolutely meaningless to end-users who don't know what we are talking about.
If governments are pushing for development, there is usually some political gain as the underlying goal. Many see it as a cash cow - lots of people wanting to use the Internet and willing to pay whatever is required, to get access to speedy and quality broadband. But there have been no promises on our island that when we get the cable connected mid-2020 that we will get faster affordable access. However, with the potential of Internet by cable from one company and by satellite from another, this does finally offer some competition - and a major factor in the development of Internet opportunities for those with entrepreneurial know-how. But we still have a long way to go.
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, 2:06 PM Holly Raiche, <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Thanks Olivier
A really good summary of where we got to in what is a difficult issue.
My take: maybe we should think more broadly about what we mean by ‘support’. I think where we got to is that monetary support for the application only is a good thing, but not sufficient. Part of the larger issue was an outreach program - just to inform about what new gTLDs are, etc, and what help - for the application fee - is available. Any perhaps the ‘support' should widen - both in information available, but in a serious look at the applicants - and whether they are equipped to support a new gTLD.
Next question, of course, is where the monetary support would come from, and circumstances in which it would make sense to provide it. (so maybe support could be available but on stringent terms to those most likely to successfully support a new gTLD?
All up for debate
Holly
On Aug 7, 2019, at 7:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
on last week's CPWG call, a particularly vigorous discussion started regarding gTLD subsequent procedures, with a particular focus on applicant support.
The ALAC has been on record in the past round as fully supporting the concept and implementation of an Applicant Support program for applicants that might not otherwise have the funding capability to pay the hefty application fee required when filing an application for a new gTLD.
For your information, please be so kind to find a few Statements from the ALAC about Applicant Support:
Publish Date
1. Title 2. 31 Jul 2014
Report: Supporting the Domain Name Industry in Underserved Regions <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/6711>
Topic(s): *Contracted Party Agreements <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/contracted-party-agreements>, Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Reviews/Improvements <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/reviews-improvements>* 3. 10 Jan 2012
New gTLD Applicant Support Program: Financial Assistance <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8041>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* 4. 20 Dec 2011
ALAC Statement on the Preliminary Support Implementation Program <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8071>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* 5. 4 Aug 2011
GAC/ALAC Statement on Applicant Support <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8261>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* 6. 7 Dec 2010
Cartagena Statement of the African ICANN community about the Support for new gTLD applicants <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8581>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>* 7. 24 Jun 2010
African ICANN Community Publishes Statement on Support for New gTLD Applicants <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8711>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>*
On last week's call -- see https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg we heard several calls for changing this long standing ALAC line and whilst some opposed changing the At-Large position, there was also significant support for changing it.
In short, the argument that was developed against Applicant Support was that the financial support proposed to applicants only covered the application fee that was only a small subset of the costs of running a gTLD - so one could argue that applicants risk being set-up to fail. Second, there was concern that there were so few applications for applicant support in the previous ground and thirdly, the guidelines for accepting support applications were so tight to reduce the possibility of gaming, that they were unachievable.
I recommend that you read the appropriate transcript that is linked from the agenda on https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg -- but I would urge those who developed their points, in favour of continuing the ALAC view to improve applicant support and those in favour of scrapping Applicant Support, to make their points known here. My paraphrased summary definitely doesn't do justice to all of the points that were put across during the call so I apologise if I have not gotten its interpretation all correct.
The conversation was just too large and too fundamental for the small amount of time we had available on the call.
Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
I personally think At-Large should continue to support retaining and improving the Applicant Support Program. - I share the opinions of Olivier and others in seeing a remote link to end users by way of assembly via an online community under a new gTLD -- we potentially have a (community) applicant which met the ASP requirements -- the not-for-profit DotKids Foundation -- although they haven't gotten to the finish line simply off the back of ASP. - For me, it's more about making a viable opportunity and (even if small) an incentive available for a potential applicant to support underserved regions/communities than shutting down such opportunity for a "lack of demand". "The lack of demand" can be due to many reasons, some of which may not be easily overcome (like infrastructural reasons) but also others which could be overcome with more education and support. - None of the other stakeholders groups are opposed to retaining the ASP but there is pushback on what financial support should be made available to an ASP applicant beyond a subsidy/reduction in application fees. (Other forms of non-financial support exist through the Pro Bono Services for gTLD Startup Registries) If we get to a position of more folks opting to not support ASP going forward, then we should just cease pressing for ASP, but not ask for it to be scraped. Just digressing, if we do get to a point where we choose to not support ASP going forward, then would our "position" be the same with Community Applications? Justine ----- On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 11:35, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Holly
I think yes new gtlds will no doubt benefit underserved regions eventually - when they ever get the opportunity to use and experience what the Internet has to offer. But there is no urgency when underserved communities are being targeted for support especially when they do not have the wherewithal to do anything with it. There is a lot more focused outreach by ICANN required before they can even attempt such a venture. Just giving them money to help put a proposal forward is like throwing it into a furnace. Do you know how much donor money goes down the drain on unsuccessful and unfinished development projects?? But governments are in charge there. Successes, usually by passionate and committed individuals, are rare
But that is not saying that there were no groups from underserved regions who did not already attempt, albeit in vain, to get past the portals of acceptance in the last round. We already came across them in an earlier SubPro study. They may try again with a little help if there is a new round, but they will be better armed after their previous harrowing experience. They weren't from the Pacific.
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, 3:57 PM Holly Raiche, <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Thanks Maureen
That clarifies a lot in this debate.
First - noting Evan’s point - are new GTLDs of benefit anyway.
And if the answer is yes, then benefit to whom, and if to end users, then what support (education, finances, etc) would help - or not.
As Olivier said, this is a big debate.
Holly
On Aug 7, 2019, at 11:45 AM, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Underserved regions - particularly small islands developing states in the Pacific - are going to be a long-time coming to be truly ready for a new round of gTLDs regardless of how much support they may be offered. At the moment, readiness overall is lacking when the cost of the internet is so expensive, despite competition already on some of the larger island countries. But domain use is not promoted and geonames would not be an issue, because they are currently so unaware of what geonames are.
Expertise in "Registries, Registrars and Registrants 101" is difficult to ascertain in a region such as the Pacific when there are very few active participants in ICANN despite the opportunities offered to them through ICANN Fellowships. Many return home and do what they can in their communities, but they are not the ones with the decision-making influence to make the changes required to insist that there are more people trained to take Internet and domain growth to another level. They are too far behind the eight-ball to even be contemplating new gTLDs.
And at the same time, from the perspective of our regional NGO - PICISOC - and the individual ALSes that are in only a few of the island countries - attempting to do outreach when face to face is too expensive and online training programmes are not going to reach those that really need it. On the ground, many of them are still just trying to get affordable access. For them that is the priority so that privacy and cybersecurity issues that worry the rest of the world today are absolutely meaningless to end-users who don't know what we are talking about.
If governments are pushing for development, there is usually some political gain as the underlying goal. Many see it as a cash cow - lots of people wanting to use the Internet and willing to pay whatever is required, to get access to speedy and quality broadband. But there have been no promises on our island that when we get the cable connected mid-2020 that we will get faster affordable access. However, with the potential of Internet by cable from one company and by satellite from another, this does finally offer some competition - and a major factor in the development of Internet opportunities for those with entrepreneurial know-how. But we still have a long way to go.
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, 2:06 PM Holly Raiche, <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Thanks Olivier
A really good summary of where we got to in what is a difficult issue.
My take: maybe we should think more broadly about what we mean by ‘support’. I think where we got to is that monetary support for the application only is a good thing, but not sufficient. Part of the larger issue was an outreach program - just to inform about what new gTLDs are, etc, and what help - for the application fee - is available. Any perhaps the ‘support' should widen - both in information available, but in a serious look at the applicants - and whether they are equipped to support a new gTLD.
Next question, of course, is where the monetary support would come from, and circumstances in which it would make sense to provide it. (so maybe support could be available but on stringent terms to those most likely to successfully support a new gTLD?
All up for debate
Holly
On Aug 7, 2019, at 7:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
on last week's CPWG call, a particularly vigorous discussion started regarding gTLD subsequent procedures, with a particular focus on applicant support.
The ALAC has been on record in the past round as fully supporting the concept and implementation of an Applicant Support program for applicants that might not otherwise have the funding capability to pay the hefty application fee required when filing an application for a new gTLD.
For your information, please be so kind to find a few Statements from the ALAC about Applicant Support:
Publish Date
1. Title 2. 31 Jul 2014
Report: Supporting the Domain Name Industry in Underserved Regions <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/6711>
Topic(s): *Contracted Party Agreements <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/contracted-party-agreements>, Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Reviews/Improvements <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/reviews-improvements>* 3. 10 Jan 2012
New gTLD Applicant Support Program: Financial Assistance <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8041>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* 4. 20 Dec 2011
ALAC Statement on the Preliminary Support Implementation Program <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8071>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* 5. 4 Aug 2011
GAC/ALAC Statement on Applicant Support <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8261>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* 6. 7 Dec 2010
Cartagena Statement of the African ICANN community about the Support for new gTLD applicants <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8581>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>* 7. 24 Jun 2010
African ICANN Community Publishes Statement on Support for New gTLD Applicants <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8711>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>*
On last week's call -- see https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg we heard several calls for changing this long standing ALAC line and whilst some opposed changing the At-Large position, there was also significant support for changing it.
In short, the argument that was developed against Applicant Support was that the financial support proposed to applicants only covered the application fee that was only a small subset of the costs of running a gTLD - so one could argue that applicants risk being set-up to fail. Second, there was concern that there were so few applications for applicant support in the previous ground and thirdly, the guidelines for accepting support applications were so tight to reduce the possibility of gaming, that they were unachievable.
I recommend that you read the appropriate transcript that is linked from the agenda on https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg -- but I would urge those who developed their points, in favour of continuing the ALAC view to improve applicant support and those in favour of scrapping Applicant Support, to make their points known here. My paraphrased summary definitely doesn't do justice to all of the points that were put across during the call so I apologise if I have not gotten its interpretation all correct.
The conversation was just too large and too fundamental for the small amount of time we had available on the call.
Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
Thank you very much Olivier, The applicant support program came after a long and hard fight a large part of the ICANN community undertook before the ICANN Board took the famous resolution 20 in Nairobi asking the community to form a working group to discuss support for applicants in need of assistance to apply for and operate a new gTLD. The working group was a joint WG between GNSO and ALAC, and it worked over around 2 years. The final report contained laugh eligibility criteria due to the pressure put on the WG by some regarding gaming the program. The result was catastrophic because we had funds to support 14 applications, we received 3 applications only and none of them got support. Why??? Because: the eligibility criteria were too tough ICANN did outreach for the new gTLD program in the global north and didn’t do for the global south (only online outreach) No outreach for the Applicant support program The CPE refused the community character of the only application that passed the tough criteria The applicants for support can’t continue their applications if they don’t pass the ASP criteria (they are eliminated from the whole new gTLD program) etc. Is this a reason to get ride of the whole concept of supporting applicants from underserved regions and communities? Of course no. Yes, to kill the ASP, we can show how big the investment for a new gTLD and argue that the application fees are a minor part of it (by the way, this argument was there in 2010). It was the amount of the application fee ($185 000) that made the community complain and explain that only rich people can apply for a new gTLD. The fee was a barrier, and the ASP was to remove it. The applicant support program is a must. It must be reviewed to make the criteria more reasonable and permit to the applicants who don’t pass the support criteria to continue their application without support. a strong "physical » outreach for the new gTLD program and for the applicant support program must be undertook in all regions, and especially in the underserved regions. At-Large is about the end-users interests. I can’t understand that At-Large refuse to permit to underserved communities to have their string for their benefit, except if we consider that they are a second class end-users. Tijani
Le 7 août 2019 à 04:34, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> a écrit :
Thanks Holly
I think yes new gtlds will no doubt benefit underserved regions eventually - when they ever get the opportunity to use and experience what the Internet has to offer. But there is no urgency when underserved communities are being targeted for support especially when they do not have the wherewithal to do anything with it. There is a lot more focused outreach by ICANN required before they can even attempt such a venture. Just giving them money to help put a proposal forward is like throwing it into a furnace. Do you know how much donor money goes down the drain on unsuccessful and unfinished development projects?? But governments are in charge there. Successes, usually by passionate and committed individuals, are rare
But that is not saying that there were no groups from underserved regions who did not already attempt, albeit in vain, to get past the portals of acceptance in the last round. We already came across them in an earlier SubPro study. They may try again with a little help if there is a new round, but they will be better armed after their previous harrowing experience. They weren't from the Pacific.
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, 3:57 PM Holly Raiche, <h.raiche@internode.on.net <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: Thanks Maureen
That clarifies a lot in this debate.
First - noting Evan’s point - are new GTLDs of benefit anyway.
And if the answer is yes, then benefit to whom, and if to end users, then what support (education, finances, etc) would help - or not.
As Olivier said, this is a big debate.
Holly
On Aug 7, 2019, at 11:45 AM, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote:
Underserved regions - particularly small islands developing states in the Pacific - are going to be a long-time coming to be truly ready for a new round of gTLDs regardless of how much support they may be offered. At the moment, readiness overall is lacking when the cost of the internet is so expensive, despite competition already on some of the larger island countries. But domain use is not promoted and geonames would not be an issue, because they are currently so unaware of what geonames are.
Expertise in "Registries, Registrars and Registrants 101" is difficult to ascertain in a region such as the Pacific when there are very few active participants in ICANN despite the opportunities offered to them through ICANN Fellowships. Many return home and do what they can in their communities, but they are not the ones with the decision-making influence to make the changes required to insist that there are more people trained to take Internet and domain growth to another level. They are too far behind the eight-ball to even be contemplating new gTLDs.
And at the same time, from the perspective of our regional NGO - PICISOC - and the individual ALSes that are in only a few of the island countries - attempting to do outreach when face to face is too expensive and online training programmes are not going to reach those that really need it. On the ground, many of them are still just trying to get affordable access. For them that is the priority so that privacy and cybersecurity issues that worry the rest of the world today are absolutely meaningless to end-users who don't know what we are talking about.
If governments are pushing for development, there is usually some political gain as the underlying goal. Many see it as a cash cow - lots of people wanting to use the Internet and willing to pay whatever is required, to get access to speedy and quality broadband. But there have been no promises on our island that when we get the cable connected mid-2020 that we will get faster affordable access. However, with the potential of Internet by cable from one company and by satellite from another, this does finally offer some competition - and a major factor in the development of Internet opportunities for those with entrepreneurial know-how. But we still have a long way to go.
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, 2:06 PM Holly Raiche, <h.raiche@internode.on.net <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: Thanks Olivier
A really good summary of where we got to in what is a difficult issue.
My take: maybe we should think more broadly about what we mean by ‘support’. I think where we got to is that monetary support for the application only is a good thing, but not sufficient. Part of the larger issue was an outreach program - just to inform about what new gTLDs are, etc, and what help - for the application fee - is available. Any perhaps the ‘support' should widen - both in information available, but in a serious look at the applicants - and whether they are equipped to support a new gTLD.
Next question, of course, is where the monetary support would come from, and circumstances in which it would make sense to provide it. (so maybe support could be available but on stringent terms to those most likely to successfully support a new gTLD?
All up for debate
Holly
On Aug 7, 2019, at 7:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
on last week's CPWG call, a particularly vigorous discussion started regarding gTLD subsequent procedures, with a particular focus on applicant support.
The ALAC has been on record in the past round as fully supporting the concept and implementation of an Applicant Support program for applicants that might not otherwise have the funding capability to pay the hefty application fee required when filing an application for a new gTLD.
For your information, please be so kind to find a few Statements from the ALAC about Applicant Support:
Publish Date Title 31 Jul 2014 Report: Supporting the Domain Name Industry in Underserved Regions <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/6711> Topic(s): Contracted Party Agreements <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/contracted-party-agreements>, Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Reviews/Improvements <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/reviews-improvements> 10 Jan 2012 New gTLD Applicant Support Program: Financial Assistance <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8041> Topic(s): Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances> 20 Dec 2011 ALAC Statement on the Preliminary Support Implementation Program <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8071> Topic(s): Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances> 4 Aug 2011 GAC/ALAC Statement on Applicant Support <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8261> Topic(s): Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances> 7 Dec 2010 Cartagena Statement of the African ICANN community about the Support for new gTLD applicants <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8581> Topic(s): Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds> 24 Jun 2010 African ICANN Community Publishes Statement on Support for New gTLD Applicants <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8711> Topic(s): Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>
On last week's call -- see https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg <https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg> we heard several calls for changing this long standing ALAC line and whilst some opposed changing the At-Large position, there was also significant support for changing it.
In short, the argument that was developed against Applicant Support was that the financial support proposed to applicants only covered the application fee that was only a small subset of the costs of running a gTLD - so one could argue that applicants risk being set-up to fail. Second, there was concern that there were so few applications for applicant support in the previous ground and thirdly, the guidelines for accepting support applications were so tight to reduce the possibility of gaming, that they were unachievable.
I recommend that you read the appropriate transcript that is linked from the agenda on https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg <https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg> -- but I would urge those who developed their points, in favour of continuing the ALAC view to improve applicant support and those in favour of scrapping Applicant Support, to make their points known here. My paraphrased summary definitely doesn't do justice to all of the points that were put across during the call so I apologise if I have not gotten its interpretation all correct. The conversation was just too large and too fundamental for the small amount of time we had available on the call.
Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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 <mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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 <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Thank you Tijani for the comprehensive and retrospective outlook. On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, 3:13 pm Tijani BEN JEMAA, <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> wrote:
Thank you very much Olivier,
The applicant support program came after a long and hard fight a large part of the ICANN community undertook before the ICANN Board took the famous resolution 20 in Nairobi asking the community to form a working group to discuss support for applicants in need of assistance to apply for and operate a new gTLD.
The working group was a joint WG between GNSO and ALAC, and it worked over around 2 years. The final report contained laugh eligibility criteria due to the pressure put on the WG by some regarding gaming the program. The result was catastrophic because we had funds to support 14 applications, we received 3 applications only and none of them got support. Why??? Because:
- the eligibility criteria were too tough - ICANN did outreach for the new gTLD program in the global north and didn’t do for the global south (only online outreach) - No outreach for the Applicant support program - The CPE refused the community character of the only application that passed the tough criteria - The applicants for support can’t continue their applications if they don’t pass the ASP criteria (they are eliminated from the whole new gTLD program) - etc.
Is this a reason to get ride of the whole concept of supporting applicants from underserved regions and communities? Of course no.
Yes, to kill the ASP, we can show how big the investment for a new gTLD and argue that the application fees are a minor part of it (by the way, this argument was there in 2010).
It was the amount of the application fee ($185 000) that made the community complain and explain that only rich people can apply for a new gTLD. The fee was a barrier, and the ASP was to remove it.
The applicant support program is a must. It must be reviewed to make the criteria more reasonable and permit to the applicants who don’t pass the support criteria to continue their application without support. a strong "physical » outreach for the new gTLD program and for the applicant support program must be undertook in all regions, and especially in the underserved regions.
At-Large is about the end-users interests. I can’t understand that At-Large refuse to permit to underserved communities to have their string for their benefit, except if we consider that they are a second class end-users.
Tijani
Le 7 août 2019 à 04:34, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> a écrit :
Thanks Holly
I think yes new gtlds will no doubt benefit underserved regions eventually - when they ever get the opportunity to use and experience what the Internet has to offer. But there is no urgency when underserved communities are being targeted for support especially when they do not have the wherewithal to do anything with it. There is a lot more focused outreach by ICANN required before they can even attempt such a venture. Just giving them money to help put a proposal forward is like throwing it into a furnace. Do you know how much donor money goes down the drain on unsuccessful and unfinished development projects?? But governments are in charge there. Successes, usually by passionate and committed individuals, are rare
But that is not saying that there were no groups from underserved regions who did not already attempt, albeit in vain, to get past the portals of acceptance in the last round. We already came across them in an earlier SubPro study. They may try again with a little help if there is a new round, but they will be better armed after their previous harrowing experience. They weren't from the Pacific.
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, 3:57 PM Holly Raiche, <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Thanks Maureen
That clarifies a lot in this debate.
First - noting Evan’s point - are new GTLDs of benefit anyway.
And if the answer is yes, then benefit to whom, and if to end users, then what support (education, finances, etc) would help - or not.
As Olivier said, this is a big debate.
Holly
On Aug 7, 2019, at 11:45 AM, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Underserved regions - particularly small islands developing states in the Pacific - are going to be a long-time coming to be truly ready for a new round of gTLDs regardless of how much support they may be offered. At the moment, readiness overall is lacking when the cost of the internet is so expensive, despite competition already on some of the larger island countries. But domain use is not promoted and geonames would not be an issue, because they are currently so unaware of what geonames are.
Expertise in "Registries, Registrars and Registrants 101" is difficult to ascertain in a region such as the Pacific when there are very few active participants in ICANN despite the opportunities offered to them through ICANN Fellowships. Many return home and do what they can in their communities, but they are not the ones with the decision-making influence to make the changes required to insist that there are more people trained to take Internet and domain growth to another level. They are too far behind the eight-ball to even be contemplating new gTLDs.
And at the same time, from the perspective of our regional NGO - PICISOC - and the individual ALSes that are in only a few of the island countries - attempting to do outreach when face to face is too expensive and online training programmes are not going to reach those that really need it. On the ground, many of them are still just trying to get affordable access. For them that is the priority so that privacy and cybersecurity issues that worry the rest of the world today are absolutely meaningless to end-users who don't know what we are talking about.
If governments are pushing for development, there is usually some political gain as the underlying goal. Many see it as a cash cow - lots of people wanting to use the Internet and willing to pay whatever is required, to get access to speedy and quality broadband. But there have been no promises on our island that when we get the cable connected mid-2020 that we will get faster affordable access. However, with the potential of Internet by cable from one company and by satellite from another, this does finally offer some competition - and a major factor in the development of Internet opportunities for those with entrepreneurial know-how. But we still have a long way to go.
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, 2:06 PM Holly Raiche, <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Thanks Olivier
A really good summary of where we got to in what is a difficult issue.
My take: maybe we should think more broadly about what we mean by ‘support’. I think where we got to is that monetary support for the application only is a good thing, but not sufficient. Part of the larger issue was an outreach program - just to inform about what new gTLDs are, etc, and what help - for the application fee - is available. Any perhaps the ‘support' should widen - both in information available, but in a serious look at the applicants - and whether they are equipped to support a new gTLD.
Next question, of course, is where the monetary support would come from, and circumstances in which it would make sense to provide it. (so maybe support could be available but on stringent terms to those most likely to successfully support a new gTLD?
All up for debate
Holly
On Aug 7, 2019, at 7:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
on last week's CPWG call, a particularly vigorous discussion started regarding gTLD subsequent procedures, with a particular focus on applicant support.
The ALAC has been on record in the past round as fully supporting the concept and implementation of an Applicant Support program for applicants that might not otherwise have the funding capability to pay the hefty application fee required when filing an application for a new gTLD.
For your information, please be so kind to find a few Statements from the ALAC about Applicant Support:
Publish Date
1. Title 2. 31 Jul 2014
Report: Supporting the Domain Name Industry in Underserved Regions <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/6711>
Topic(s): *Contracted Party Agreements <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/contracted-party-agreements>, Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Reviews/Improvements <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/reviews-improvements>* 3. 10 Jan 2012
New gTLD Applicant Support Program: Financial Assistance <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8041>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* 4. 20 Dec 2011
ALAC Statement on the Preliminary Support Implementation Program <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8071>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* 5. 4 Aug 2011
GAC/ALAC Statement on Applicant Support <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8261>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* 6. 7 Dec 2010
Cartagena Statement of the African ICANN community about the Support for new gTLD applicants <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8581>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>* 7. 24 Jun 2010
African ICANN Community Publishes Statement on Support for New gTLD Applicants <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8711>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>*
On last week's call -- see https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg we heard several calls for changing this long standing ALAC line and whilst some opposed changing the At-Large position, there was also significant support for changing it.
In short, the argument that was developed against Applicant Support was that the financial support proposed to applicants only covered the application fee that was only a small subset of the costs of running a gTLD - so one could argue that applicants risk being set-up to fail. Second, there was concern that there were so few applications for applicant support in the previous ground and thirdly, the guidelines for accepting support applications were so tight to reduce the possibility of gaming, that they were unachievable.
I recommend that you read the appropriate transcript that is linked from the agenda on https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg -- but I would urge those who developed their points, in favour of continuing the ALAC view to improve applicant support and those in favour of scrapping Applicant Support, to make their points known here. My paraphrased summary definitely doesn't do justice to all of the points that were put across during the call so I apologise if I have not gotten its interpretation all correct.
The conversation was just too large and too fundamental for the small amount of time we had available on the call.
Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
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._______________________________________________ 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.
Thank you Tijani. Great summary Maureen On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, 4:13 AM Tijani BEN JEMAA, <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> wrote:
Thank you very much Olivier,
The applicant support program came after a long and hard fight a large part of the ICANN community undertook before the ICANN Board took the famous resolution 20 in Nairobi asking the community to form a working group to discuss support for applicants in need of assistance to apply for and operate a new gTLD.
The working group was a joint WG between GNSO and ALAC, and it worked over around 2 years. The final report contained laugh eligibility criteria due to the pressure put on the WG by some regarding gaming the program. The result was catastrophic because we had funds to support 14 applications, we received 3 applications only and none of them got support. Why??? Because:
- the eligibility criteria were too tough - ICANN did outreach for the new gTLD program in the global north and didn’t do for the global south (only online outreach) - No outreach for the Applicant support program - The CPE refused the community character of the only application that passed the tough criteria - The applicants for support can’t continue their applications if they don’t pass the ASP criteria (they are eliminated from the whole new gTLD program) - etc.
Is this a reason to get ride of the whole concept of supporting applicants from underserved regions and communities? Of course no.
Yes, to kill the ASP, we can show how big the investment for a new gTLD and argue that the application fees are a minor part of it (by the way, this argument was there in 2010).
It was the amount of the application fee ($185 000) that made the community complain and explain that only rich people can apply for a new gTLD. The fee was a barrier, and the ASP was to remove it.
The applicant support program is a must. It must be reviewed to make the criteria more reasonable and permit to the applicants who don’t pass the support criteria to continue their application without support. a strong "physical » outreach for the new gTLD program and for the applicant support program must be undertook in all regions, and especially in the underserved regions.
At-Large is about the end-users interests. I can’t understand that At-Large refuse to permit to underserved communities to have their string for their benefit, except if we consider that they are a second class end-users.
Tijani
Le 7 août 2019 à 04:34, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> a écrit :
Thanks Holly
I think yes new gtlds will no doubt benefit underserved regions eventually - when they ever get the opportunity to use and experience what the Internet has to offer. But there is no urgency when underserved communities are being targeted for support especially when they do not have the wherewithal to do anything with it. There is a lot more focused outreach by ICANN required before they can even attempt such a venture. Just giving them money to help put a proposal forward is like throwing it into a furnace. Do you know how much donor money goes down the drain on unsuccessful and unfinished development projects?? But governments are in charge there. Successes, usually by passionate and committed individuals, are rare
But that is not saying that there were no groups from underserved regions who did not already attempt, albeit in vain, to get past the portals of acceptance in the last round. We already came across them in an earlier SubPro study. They may try again with a little help if there is a new round, but they will be better armed after their previous harrowing experience. They weren't from the Pacific.
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, 3:57 PM Holly Raiche, <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Thanks Maureen
That clarifies a lot in this debate.
First - noting Evan’s point - are new GTLDs of benefit anyway.
And if the answer is yes, then benefit to whom, and if to end users, then what support (education, finances, etc) would help - or not.
As Olivier said, this is a big debate.
Holly
On Aug 7, 2019, at 11:45 AM, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Underserved regions - particularly small islands developing states in the Pacific - are going to be a long-time coming to be truly ready for a new round of gTLDs regardless of how much support they may be offered. At the moment, readiness overall is lacking when the cost of the internet is so expensive, despite competition already on some of the larger island countries. But domain use is not promoted and geonames would not be an issue, because they are currently so unaware of what geonames are.
Expertise in "Registries, Registrars and Registrants 101" is difficult to ascertain in a region such as the Pacific when there are very few active participants in ICANN despite the opportunities offered to them through ICANN Fellowships. Many return home and do what they can in their communities, but they are not the ones with the decision-making influence to make the changes required to insist that there are more people trained to take Internet and domain growth to another level. They are too far behind the eight-ball to even be contemplating new gTLDs.
And at the same time, from the perspective of our regional NGO - PICISOC - and the individual ALSes that are in only a few of the island countries - attempting to do outreach when face to face is too expensive and online training programmes are not going to reach those that really need it. On the ground, many of them are still just trying to get affordable access. For them that is the priority so that privacy and cybersecurity issues that worry the rest of the world today are absolutely meaningless to end-users who don't know what we are talking about.
If governments are pushing for development, there is usually some political gain as the underlying goal. Many see it as a cash cow - lots of people wanting to use the Internet and willing to pay whatever is required, to get access to speedy and quality broadband. But there have been no promises on our island that when we get the cable connected mid-2020 that we will get faster affordable access. However, with the potential of Internet by cable from one company and by satellite from another, this does finally offer some competition - and a major factor in the development of Internet opportunities for those with entrepreneurial know-how. But we still have a long way to go.
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, 2:06 PM Holly Raiche, <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Thanks Olivier
A really good summary of where we got to in what is a difficult issue.
My take: maybe we should think more broadly about what we mean by ‘support’. I think where we got to is that monetary support for the application only is a good thing, but not sufficient. Part of the larger issue was an outreach program - just to inform about what new gTLDs are, etc, and what help - for the application fee - is available. Any perhaps the ‘support' should widen - both in information available, but in a serious look at the applicants - and whether they are equipped to support a new gTLD.
Next question, of course, is where the monetary support would come from, and circumstances in which it would make sense to provide it. (so maybe support could be available but on stringent terms to those most likely to successfully support a new gTLD?
All up for debate
Holly
On Aug 7, 2019, at 7:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
on last week's CPWG call, a particularly vigorous discussion started regarding gTLD subsequent procedures, with a particular focus on applicant support.
The ALAC has been on record in the past round as fully supporting the concept and implementation of an Applicant Support program for applicants that might not otherwise have the funding capability to pay the hefty application fee required when filing an application for a new gTLD.
For your information, please be so kind to find a few Statements from the ALAC about Applicant Support:
Publish Date
1. Title 2. 31 Jul 2014
Report: Supporting the Domain Name Industry in Underserved Regions <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/6711>
Topic(s): *Contracted Party Agreements <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/contracted-party-agreements>, Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Reviews/Improvements <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/reviews-improvements>* 3. 10 Jan 2012
New gTLD Applicant Support Program: Financial Assistance <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8041>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* 4. 20 Dec 2011
ALAC Statement on the Preliminary Support Implementation Program <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8071>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* 5. 4 Aug 2011
GAC/ALAC Statement on Applicant Support <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8261>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* 6. 7 Dec 2010
Cartagena Statement of the African ICANN community about the Support for new gTLD applicants <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8581>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>* 7. 24 Jun 2010
African ICANN Community Publishes Statement on Support for New gTLD Applicants <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8711>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>*
On last week's call -- see https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg we heard several calls for changing this long standing ALAC line and whilst some opposed changing the At-Large position, there was also significant support for changing it.
In short, the argument that was developed against Applicant Support was that the financial support proposed to applicants only covered the application fee that was only a small subset of the costs of running a gTLD - so one could argue that applicants risk being set-up to fail. Second, there was concern that there were so few applications for applicant support in the previous ground and thirdly, the guidelines for accepting support applications were so tight to reduce the possibility of gaming, that they were unachievable.
I recommend that you read the appropriate transcript that is linked from the agenda on https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg -- but I would urge those who developed their points, in favour of continuing the ALAC view to improve applicant support and those in favour of scrapping Applicant Support, to make their points known here. My paraphrased summary definitely doesn't do justice to all of the points that were put across during the call so I apologise if I have not gotten its interpretation all correct.
The conversation was just too large and too fundamental for the small amount of time we had available on the call.
Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
Tijani BEN JEMAA
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. 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. IMO, this is an issue of interest to other ICANN constituencies but the end-user constituency has no stake in how it is resolved. 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". Never once in the recent debate have I advocated that AS was inherently wrong. 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. 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 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. Cheers, - Evan
Evan, in my example cos I am always looking at what is happening in my backyard, what I am saying too is that end-users in my space don't care, but that's because they are unaware. They don't know what they should be caring about. But that doesn't mean that if they had genuine support BEFORE the application process to understand what ICANN and the domain system and new gtlds were all about, then they might care. So I don't think that At-Large should drop it at all. So what "support" do we give to PRE-Applicants? On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:49 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
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.
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. IMO, this is an issue of interest to other ICANN constituencies but the end-user constituency has no stake in how it is resolved. 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". Never once in the recent debate have I advocated that AS was inherently wrong. 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. 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 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.
Cheers,
- 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.
Dear Maureen and all, Please can anyone lead me to the definition of "end-users" from the At-large perspective? I don't want to dwell into what I heard At-large end-users could be because I might be misinformed. Having such definition makes the many discussions I've been reading since I joined At-large of greater focus. If there are no end-user definition for AT-large, I suggest to add this on the agenda item for ATLAS III. Best wishes to all, Nadira On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 09:01 Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Evan, in my example cos I am always looking at what is happening in my backyard, what I am saying too is that end-users in my space don't care, but that's because they are unaware. They don't know what they should be caring about. But that doesn't mean that if they had genuine support BEFORE the application process to understand what ICANN and the domain system and new gtlds were all about, then they might care. So I don't think that At-Large should drop it at all. So what "support" do we give to PRE-Applicants?
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:49 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
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.
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. IMO, this is an issue of interest to other ICANN constituencies but the end-user constituency has no stake in how it is resolved. 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". Never once in the recent debate have I advocated that AS was inherently wrong. 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. 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 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.
Cheers,
- 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
If you can come up with an At-Large definition we can add it somehow into the ALS criteria review item 🙂 On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, 8:23 PM Nadira Alaraj, <nadira.araj@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Maureen and all, Please can anyone lead me to the definition of "end-users" from the At-large perspective?
I don't want to dwell into what I heard At-large end-users could be because I might be misinformed.
Having such definition makes the many discussions I've been reading since I joined At-large of greater focus.
If there are no end-user definition for AT-large, I suggest to add this on the agenda item for ATLAS III.
Best wishes to all, Nadira
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 09:01 Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Evan, in my example cos I am always looking at what is happening in my backyard, what I am saying too is that end-users in my space don't care, but that's because they are unaware. They don't know what they should be caring about. But that doesn't mean that if they had genuine support BEFORE the application process to understand what ICANN and the domain system and new gtlds were all about, then they might care. So I don't think that At-Large should drop it at all. So what "support" do we give to PRE-Applicants?
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:49 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
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.
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. IMO, this is an issue of interest to other ICANN constituencies but the end-user constituency has no stake in how it is resolved. 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". Never once in the recent debate have I advocated that AS was inherently wrong. 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. 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 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.
Cheers,
- 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
I’ve been working on that very thing and hope eventually to bring it up on the CPWG call. 😉 From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 11:45 PM To: Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj@gmail.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] New gTLD Applicant Support - improve it, or scrap it? If you can come up with an At-Large definition we can add it somehow into the ALS criteria review item 🙂 On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, 8:23 PM Nadira Alaraj, <nadira.araj@gmail.com<mailto:nadira.araj@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Maureen and all, Please can anyone lead me to the definition of "end-users" from the At-large perspective? I don't want to dwell into what I heard At-large end-users could be because I might be misinformed. Having such definition makes the many discussions I've been reading since I joined At-large of greater focus. If there are no end-user definition for AT-large, I suggest to add this on the agenda item for ATLAS III. Best wishes to all, Nadira On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 09:01 Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: Evan, in my example cos I am always looking at what is happening in my backyard, what I am saying too is that end-users in my space don't care, but that's because they are unaware. They don't know what they should be caring about. But that doesn't mean that if they had genuine support BEFORE the application process to understand what ICANN and the domain system and new gtlds were all about, then they might care. So I don't think that At-Large should drop it at all. So what "support" do we give to PRE-Applicants? On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:49 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org<mailto:evan@telly.org>> wrote: 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. 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. IMO, this is an issue of interest to other ICANN constituencies but the end-user constituency has no stake in how it is resolved. 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". Never once in the recent debate have I advocated that AS was inherently wrong. 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. 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 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. Cheers, - Evan _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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.
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 02:24, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj@gmail.com> wrote: Please can anyone lead me to the definition of "end-users" from the
At-large perspective?
What has guided me well is simply this: "An Internet end-user is anyone who obtains or provides services, or otherwise communicates with others, using the Internet." Maybe it could be refined a bit but this works for most instances I can think of. - Evan
I don't want to dwell into what I heard At-large end-users could be because I might be misinformed.
Having such definition makes the many discussions I've been reading since I joined At-large of greater focus.
If there are no end-user definition for AT-large, I suggest to add this on the agenda item for ATLAS III.
Best wishes to all, Nadira
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 09:01 Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Evan, in my example cos I am always looking at what is happening in my backyard, what I am saying too is that end-users in my space don't care, but that's because they are unaware. They don't know what they should be caring about. But that doesn't mean that if they had genuine support BEFORE the application process to understand what ICANN and the domain system and new gtlds were all about, then they might care. So I don't think that At-Large should drop it at all. So what "support" do we give to PRE-Applicants?
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:49 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
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.
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. IMO, this is an issue of interest to other ICANN constituencies but the end-user constituency has no stake in how it is resolved. 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". Never once in the recent debate have I advocated that AS was inherently wrong. 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. 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 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.
Cheers,
- 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch or @el56
From my perspective still many words need to be defined as well such as "everyone" "provides services" because they are so broad and include many
I created a New thread to the discussion of a definition of end-users avoiding the distraction of the flow of the new gtlds application support thread. @Evan, thank you for sharing your perspective onthe end-user definition. things. Better to wait for Jonathan to bring it up (I also copied Jonathan email here) so everyone's voice could be heard. Best wishes, Nadira ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: *Jonathan Zuck* <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Date: Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 10:48 Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] New gTLD Applicant Support - improve it, or scrap it? To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>, Nadira Alaraj < nadira.araj@gmail.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> I’ve been working on that very thing and hope eventually to bring it up on the CPWG call. 😉 On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 10:49 Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 02:24, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj@gmail.com> wrote:
Please can anyone lead me to the definition of "end-users" from the
At-large perspective?
What has guided me well is simply this:
"An Internet end-user is anyone who obtains or provides services, or otherwise communicates with others, using the Internet."
Maybe it could be refined a bit but this works for most instances I can think of.
- Evan
I don't want to dwell into what I heard At-large end-users could be because I might be misinformed.
Having such definition makes the many discussions I've been reading since I joined At-large of greater focus.
If there are no end-user definition for AT-large, I suggest to add this on the agenda item for ATLAS III.
Best wishes to all, Nadira
Regarding meaning per ICANN bye-law, maybe hansard-like documentation still exists and could be combed for meaning? Carlton On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, 3:32 am Nadira Alaraj, <nadira.araj@gmail.com> wrote:
I created a New thread to the discussion of a definition of end-users avoiding the distraction of the flow of the new gtlds application support thread.
@Evan, thank you for sharing your perspective onthe end-user definition. From my perspective still many words need to be defined as well such as "everyone" "provides services" because they are so broad and include many things. Better to wait for Jonathan to bring it up (I also copied Jonathan email here) so everyone's voice could be heard.
Best wishes, Nadira
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: *Jonathan Zuck* <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Date: Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 10:48 Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] New gTLD Applicant Support - improve it, or scrap it? To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>, Nadira Alaraj < nadira.araj@gmail.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>
I’ve been working on that very thing and hope eventually to bring it up on the CPWG call. 😉
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 10:49 Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 02:24, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj@gmail.com> wrote:
Please can anyone lead me to the definition of "end-users" from the
At-large perspective?
What has guided me well is simply this:
"An Internet end-user is anyone who obtains or provides services, or otherwise communicates with others, using the Internet."
Maybe it could be refined a bit but this works for most instances I can think of.
- Evan
I don't want to dwell into what I heard At-large end-users could be because I might be misinformed.
Having such definition makes the many discussions I've been reading since I joined At-large of greater focus.
If there are no end-user definition for AT-large, I suggest to add this on the agenda item for ATLAS III.
Best wishes to all, Nadira
_______________________________________________
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.
In complete agreement with Maureen as we share the same backyard. The same can be said for those within other SIDS and LDCs, LLDCs etc. On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, 7:01 am Maureen Hilyard, <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Evan, in my example cos I am always looking at what is happening in my backyard, what I am saying too is that end-users in my space don't care, but that's because they are unaware. They don't know what they should be caring about. But that doesn't mean that if they had genuine support BEFORE the application process to understand what ICANN and the domain system and new gtlds were all about, then they might care. So I don't think that At-Large should drop it at all. So what "support" do we give to PRE-Applicants?
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:49 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
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.
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. IMO, this is an issue of interest to other ICANN constituencies but the end-user constituency has no stake in how it is resolved. 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". Never once in the recent debate have I advocated that AS was inherently wrong. 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. 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 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.
Cheers,
- 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
Hi Maureen, On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 02:01, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: Evan, in my example cos I am always looking at what is happening in my
backyard, what I am saying too is that end-users in my space don't care, but that's because they are unaware.
Unaware of what? Unaware of Internet domains? Unaware of the ability to purchase a top-level domain? or Unaware of the possibility that such a purchase could be reduced in price under certain circumstances. Maureen, I will respectfully disagree wholeheartedly with your assertion. Indeed, in your backyard lie a number of the domain-name world's great small-player success stories, in one case a TLD is the source of ten percent of the country's whole GDP. The potential of Internet domains in the region is well understood by governments and entrepreneurs. There is a big difference between "they don't participate because they don't know" and "they don't participate because they know and choose to stay away". (BTW, there is a GREAT video that explains domain names to the "unaware", through the lens of the Tuvalu experience, that can be found here <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34gHoxqZlJc>. I highly recommend it.) Of course, this is at the level of governments and businesses large enough to afford to run a registry. The reason that end users in your backyard don't care is the same reason that end-users ANYWHERE don't care .... Internet domains *Just Don't Matter*. At most you are arguing for an At-Large-initiated public education campaign, which I would agree is a much better use of resources than running after all these irrelevant issues within ICANN. But better understanding of domains is not going to make people flock to buy them. Registrars have already been aggressively marketing <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMIBzojnOkY> for people to understand (so they may buy) domain names without our help. I would be wholly in favour of any action ALAC could take to better understand global end users. Were we to know and act upon the actual needs and priorities of end users ALAC's focus would dramatically change from what it is now. I assert this because I make an effort to talk to people around me -- friends and family who use the Internet but are not technically or politically inclined -- about ICANN issues. I have found the results surprising, and I invite everyone here to try the same.
They don't know what they should be caring about.
IMO this approach is insulting. Most people have a fairly decent idea in what to care about, including how they use the Internet. That's why they prefer search over the use of "memorable" domain names; arguably the growth of Google can be directly linked to the failure of the DNS to provide a useful way for people to find what they want on the Internet, Don't confuse "know but don't care" with "don't know". In any case, I am unclear of the logic that leads from the premise of "people are unaware" to a conclusion of "therefore we should subsidize certain gTLD applications". Cheers, - Evan
Dear Evan, Maureen is the elected representative from Australasia, Asia and the Pacific. The Pacific which is made of 27 countries and territories that have delegated country code top level domains is a very different terrain from Canada and North America. As a community, and more so as a region, we are very different from Canada and our challenges are different. The end users challenges in the Pacific is different from that of Canada, consider Samoa where the minimum wage is $0.86 (USD) per hour. In fact, the Canadian government recognises this and through the global Canadian fund has been encouraging capacity building in public policy, and other areas in Asia Pacific (Nepal, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Samoa and Fiji). Internet costs in the Pacific are amongst the most expensive in the world. As our designated mouthpiece for our region, Maureen and the other representatives from APRALO on the ALAC is well versed with the constraints of our region and the needs of our end users. You have made your point and our region has made ours. Best Wishes, Sala On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, 8:37 am Evan Leibovitch, <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hi Maureen,
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 02:01, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Evan, in my example cos I am always looking at what is happening in my
backyard, what I am saying too is that end-users in my space don't care, but that's because they are unaware.
Unaware of what?
Unaware of Internet domains? Unaware of the ability to purchase a top-level domain? or Unaware of the possibility that such a purchase could be reduced in price under certain circumstances.
Maureen, I will respectfully disagree wholeheartedly with your assertion. Indeed, in your backyard lie a number of the domain-name world's great small-player success stories, in one case a TLD is the source of ten percent of the country's whole GDP. The potential of Internet domains in the region is well understood by governments and entrepreneurs. There is a big difference between "they don't participate because they don't know" and "they don't participate because they know and choose to stay away".
(BTW, there is a GREAT video that explains domain names to the "unaware", through the lens of the Tuvalu experience, that can be found here <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34gHoxqZlJc>. I highly recommend it.)
Of course, this is at the level of governments and businesses large enough to afford to run a registry. The reason that end users in your backyard don't care is the same reason that end-users ANYWHERE don't care .... Internet domains *Just Don't Matter*. At most you are arguing for an At-Large-initiated public education campaign, which I would agree is a much better use of resources than running after all these irrelevant issues within ICANN. But better understanding of domains is not going to make people flock to buy them. Registrars have already been aggressively marketing <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMIBzojnOkY> for people to understand (so they may buy) domain names without our help.
I would be wholly in favour of any action ALAC could take to better understand global end users. Were we to know and act upon the actual needs and priorities of end users ALAC's focus would dramatically change from what it is now. I assert this because I make an effort to talk to people around me -- friends and family who use the Internet but are not technically or politically inclined -- about ICANN issues. I have found the results surprising, and I invite everyone here to try the same.
They don't know what they should be caring about.
IMO this approach is insulting. Most people have a fairly decent idea in what to care about, including how they use the Internet. That's why they prefer search over the use of "memorable" domain names; arguably the growth of Google can be directly linked to the failure of the DNS to provide a useful way for people to find what they want on the Internet,
Don't confuse "know but don't care" with "don't know".
In any case, I am unclear of the logic that leads from the premise of "people are unaware" to a conclusion of "therefore we should subsidize certain gTLD applications".
Cheers,
- 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._______________________________________________ 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.
Gosh Evan do you ever sleep? But I feel compelled to reply... On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 9:37 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hi Maureen,
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 02:01, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Evan, in my example cos I am always looking at what is happening in my
backyard, what I am saying too is that end-users in my space don't care, but that's because they are unaware.
Unaware of what?
Unaware of Internet domains? Unaware of the ability to purchase a top-level domain? or Unaware of the possibility that such a purchase could be reduced in price under certain circumstances.
Indeed, in your backyard lie a number of the domain-name world's great small-player success stories, in one case a TLD is the source of ten percent of the country's whole GDP. The potential of Internet domains in the region is well understood by governments and entrepreneurs. There is a big difference between "they don't participate because they don't know" and "they don't participate because they know and choose to stay away".
(BTW, there is a GREAT video that explains domain names to the "unaware", through the lens of the Tuvalu experience, that can be found here <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34gHoxqZlJc>. I highly recommend it.)
There are lots of stories similar to that of Tuvalu and Niue who have others running their cctlds and giving a small share back to the country concerned. There are rules about .ck domain names and because the government is a part owner of the domain they are very fussy about how it is used. There have been lots of requests as you can imagine. But again
All of the above. I live on an island where most people aren't really interested because the majority contact with the internet is with mobiles and they only use what they can afford which is very little on local salaries. Adults seem to spend their money on cigarettes at $33 a packet of 20 the youngsters spend their money on the Internet and pay $50 for 5GB of mobile data. They dont need to know that Facebook is a domain. However with the advent of cable next year and a cable company actually competing with the current monopoly satellite service provider, things might start getting interesting. Also a new Telecommunications Act when the government finally puts it through parliament will enable lots of opportunities for new businesses and other entrepreneurial ventures. This is when domains may start to feature. This is my backyard. End-users dont know the potential of being a registrant because they havent had the chance to know what domains are and to see how domains might be used. They dont participate because they* really* don't know. But the potential for change is just around the corner. And while there is a lot of learning and setting up that needs to take place but there are also political and cultural barriers. Regardless, the capacity building WG is working with Brian Gutterman on a Registrant ICANN Learn course to explain what is involved in being a registrant and the potential that can come about through domains. This is an ideal time for people in the Cook Islands to do this course so that they get a better understanding of being a registrant before more broadband becomes available. It would be good to know how they can use a domain to set up and promote their business or their personal or NGO websites. I see this course as being one means of supporting new registrants. Maureen, I will respectfully disagree wholeheartedly with your assertion. this is a government level decision not end-user..
In any case, I am unclear of the logic that leads from the premise of "people are unaware" to a conclusion of "therefore we should subsidize certain gTLD applications".
Well that didn't come from me... support does not necessarily mean subsidise.
Cheers,
- Evan
My comments are inline: On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, 6:49 am Evan Leibovitch, <evan@telly.org> wrote:
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.
Cheers,
- 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._______________________________________________ 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.
Hi Sala, long time no talk. 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. 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
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
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.
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.
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.
Agree completely!!!!!!!!! Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 8:56:14 AM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] New gTLD Applicant Support - improve it, or scrap it? 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<mailto:evan@telly.org>> wrote: Hi Sala, long time no talk. On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 04:12, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com<mailto: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. 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<mailto: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.
I agree too. On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 10:32 AM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Agree completely!!!!!!!!!
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 7, 2019 8:56:14 AM *To:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] New gTLD Applicant Support - improve it, or scrap it?
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.
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.
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.
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 www.Innovatorsnetwork.org <http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 7, 2019 8:56:14 AM *To:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] New gTLD Applicant Support - improve it, or scrap it?
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 <mailto:evan@telly.org>> wrote:
Hi Sala, long time no talk.
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 04:12, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com <mailto: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.
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 <mailto: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.
Doesn't need to be Average end user but should be end user experiences Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 2:49:34 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>; Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] New gTLD Applicant Support - improve it, or scrap it? 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 www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com><mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 8:56:14 AM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org><mailto:cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] New gTLD Applicant Support - improve it, or scrap it? 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<mailto:evan@telly.org>> wrote: Hi Sala, long time no talk. On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 04:12, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com<mailto: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. 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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.
On August 7, 2019 5:50:25 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
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."
I assert that "the vocal ones" are those who are driving ALAC beyond its mandate, to exploit At-Large to do the bidding of TLD applicants, registrants and others who are already spoken for by other ICANN constituencies. The reality is that this mission creep deeply infects ALAC and has characterized its policy decisions for many years. (Meanwhile, real champions of end user issues such as Garth got a mimimum of ALAC support and left.) It took my stepping away for a while to see how bad the infection is from outside the ICANN bubble. The belief that unique TLDs, let alone subsidized ones, are a necessary component of community building is just that - a belief, more religion than fact-based. This is why I keep asking for evidence to back up assertions about the necessary role of Internet domains in providing cohesion, security or identity to communities (underserved or otherwise). In my time outside ICANN, from private business to UN refugee camps, I found that the tightest of Internet communities, the strongest of common cause, can be formed without a single mention of domain names. New tech, from ever-improving search to super-encrypted Signal groups, provide levels of utility and privacy unheard of within the DNS. So... Let's put to the test the conflicting claims made by Olivier and me about what individual end users really want and need from the DNS. Based on my own research and experiences I'm totally confident that any useful survey of individual end users - - a truly representative sample, not one overloaded with insiders and wonks and registrants as found inside the bubble - - will overwhelmingly vindicate my PoV. - Evan
Hello All, Am in absolute agreement with Olivier's views. Sala On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, 10:50 pm Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
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 www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 7, 2019 8:56:14 AM *To:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] New gTLD Applicant Support - improve it, or scrap it?
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.
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.
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 listCPWG@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.
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing listGTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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.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.
Recently, as was published in May 2019, the Amazonian tribe won their action against Big Oil. See: https://www.disclose.tv/amazon-tribe-wins-lawsuit-against-big-oil-saving-mil... gTLDs are virtual real estate as are ccTLDs. In the Pacific, we still have ordinary end users in Tokelau who have to beg for funding and whose territory to get to you have to go first to Samoa then take a ship that cannot dock on Tokelau but that you have to catch a boat to reach them. Their pressing issues are "water" etc, yet they have so much they could gain from dot tk. Tuvalu's dot TV is managed by Verisign and again end users don't get an equitable return considering the dominant market player from the root zone right up to the TLD strings The ALAC must be able to speak for the diverse end users present and future. Sala On Thu, 8 Aug 2019, 2:39 am Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro, < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello All,
Am in absolute agreement with Olivier's views.
Sala
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, 10:50 pm Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
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 www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 7, 2019 8:56:14 AM *To:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] New gTLD Applicant Support - improve it, or scrap it?
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.
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.
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 listCPWG@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.
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing listGTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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.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.
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 www.Innovatorsnetwork.org <http://www.innovatorsnetwork.org/> From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> <mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 8:56:14 AM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] New gTLD Applicant Support - improve it, or scrap it?
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 <mailto:evan@telly.org>> wrote: Hi Sala, long time no talk.
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 04:12, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com <mailto: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.
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 <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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 <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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 <mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg>
Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
Tijani BEN JEMAA
+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 ----- On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 14:39, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> wrote:
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 www.Innovatorsnetwork.org <http://www.innovatorsnetwork.org/>
------------------------------ *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 7, 2019 8:56:14 AM *To:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] New gTLD Applicant Support - improve it, or scrap it?
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.
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.
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 listCPWG@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.
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing listGTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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.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.
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.
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 03:16, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:
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;
We're in agreement here. The difference is that IMO ALAC is not at all mindful of global end users because it really doesn't know what they want. It's making up positions based on guesses and faith and wishful thinking. I want nothing more than for At-Large to survey the landscape of end users to determine what is important, rather than self-righteously guessing at it. The self-interested, self-selected, time-available people involved in ALAC mostly do not at all understand the needs of those who use the Internet yet will never register a domain and never want to. I fully agree that we need to be aware of what applies to other end-users; however ALAC and ICANN are grotesquely out of touch with what is outside the bubble. Inside we are intimately exposed to all the little politics of who-owns-what or who-deserves-what, issues that outside the bubble are completely irrelevant. For myself, I have gone out of my way to talk to non-tech-savvy Internet users, including family members, refugees, the generation above me, about what is important for Internet use. Everyone in ALAC needs to do this, you may be surprised by the results. Yes, ALAC is one of the most geographically diverse parts of ICANN and least conflicted, which is why I still have hope for it. But populated as it is with governance wonks and people experienced in the DNS, it is so massively out of touch with "the billions" as to be incapable of fulfilling its bylaw mandate. Many people here have asserted that issues such as Applicant Support and geo names affect end users, but those assertions are based on faith, nearly a religion. They have yet to provide a single shred of evidence of end-user relevance beyond gut instinct. Old arguments that suggest that domains can protect necssary privacy, or bring together communities, have proven to be absolute nonsense through the realities of the last decade. Despite a dozen years passing and hundreds of new domains out there, not a single success story exists of how a culture was preserved or a whistleblower was protected because of new TLDs (or because of domains at all). ALAC needs to be driven by evidence and facts rather than instinctive dogma. Challenge assumptions, most of them are wrong. - Evan
Dear Evan, I led the team that reviewed and drafted the Pacific Digital Framework that reports to the Regional ICT Ministerial under the Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific region. We held extensive consultations on issues in the Pacific related to the internet ecosystem for member states. The issues that Maureen raised are consistent with findings on the ground. Maureen has also in the past been chair of an ALS that has extensive membership of a wide "sample of end users" and alot of what she is raising is the consensus view of the Pacific region and these have been taken through past consultative methods through surveys etc. Maureen, together with Tracey Hackshaw is co-chair of the Dynamic Coalition of Small Islands Developing States. In other hats, we also work closely with both Government and UN agencies in running national consultations in Asia Pacific countries and a recent one this year was to launch a project where Nepal, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Fiji and Samoa are pilot countries. This of course is in the are of ICT (ecosystem), gender, access to finance. The issues within Asia Pacific are immensely different from Canada and North America. In fact, Asia Pacific contributes the largest volume to global e commerce and it has the largest end users. Within our region, we have well established protocols for gauging and gathering our positions and these are diverse and varied. The views espoused by our elected representative Ms Maureen Hilyard, Ms Justine Chew, Mr Tijani Benjamaa, Mr Olivier Crepin Le Blond are consistent with the region's views. I would suggest that you focus on your consultations within your ALS and region which is NARALO and let us within APRALO focus on ours. Best Wishes, Sala On Thu, 8 Aug 2019, 4:51 pm Evan Leibovitch, <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 03:16, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:
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;
We're in agreement here. The difference is that IMO ALAC is not at all mindful of global end users because it really doesn't know what they want. It's making up positions based on guesses and faith and wishful thinking.
I want nothing more than for At-Large to survey the landscape of end users to determine what is important, rather than self-righteously guessing at it. The self-interested, self-selected, time-available people involved in ALAC mostly do not at all understand the needs of those who use the Internet yet will never register a domain and never want to. I fully agree that we need to be aware of what applies to other end-users; however ALAC and ICANN are grotesquely out of touch with what is outside the bubble. Inside we are intimately exposed to all the little politics of who-owns-what or who-deserves-what, issues that outside the bubble are completely irrelevant.
For myself, I have gone out of my way to talk to non-tech-savvy Internet users, including family members, refugees, the generation above me, about what is important for Internet use. Everyone in ALAC needs to do this, you may be surprised by the results.
Yes, ALAC is one of the most geographically diverse parts of ICANN and least conflicted, which is why I still have hope for it. But populated as it is with governance wonks and people experienced in the DNS, it is so massively out of touch with "the billions" as to be incapable of fulfilling its bylaw mandate.
Many people here have asserted that issues such as Applicant Support and geo names affect end users, but those assertions are based on faith, nearly a religion. They have yet to provide a single shred of evidence of end-user relevance beyond gut instinct. Old arguments that suggest that domains can protect necssary privacy, or bring together communities, have proven to be absolute nonsense through the realities of the last decade. Despite a dozen years passing and hundreds of new domains out there, not a single success story exists of how a culture was preserved or a whistleblower was protected because of new TLDs (or because of domains at all).
ALAC needs to be driven by evidence and facts rather than instinctive dogma. Challenge assumptions, most of them are wrong.
- 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._______________________________________________ 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.
Hi all. I think that the way other constituencies or stakeholder groups are chartering themselves is orthogonal to how ALAC defines its scope. If we do believe that the reason for having ALAC is to serve the end user community, the fact that other bits and pieces of the ICANN constellation include that particular segment is by and large irrelevant. Personally, I do not believe that ALAC should be the voice of “whoever is not included otherwise”, but must have a clear profile: I believe that we have been chartered to be the voice of the “users at-large”. “Users at-large” include indeed both registrants and non-registrants - however, as I have argued in the past, and as Evan is arguing in this thread, the non-registrant users are an overwhelming majority and, moreover, they are the ones that have less awareness of ICANN, let alone ties with it and opportunities to influence policy decisions. This is an important point, in particular because we are an advisory body, not a lobbying body. This means that we must be committed to look at the larger picture and not constrain ourselves with the support of the parts of our community that are more vocal and/or pushing for a narrow set of interests. As observed by Tijani, most of us are not just “plain users” but also registrants. This is the case for myself as well. Moreover, we all have a knowledge and experience of the Internet world that is above average, and have therefore sometimes difficulties in “guessing” what a complete layman user (they are the vast majority!) thinks and needs, in particular when that particular user lives in a completely different geopolitical or economic situation - but this is our task. Personally, I try always to set aside my needs as registrant to embrace the view of an Internet user that does not have this role. I believe that if we do not do this, we do not fulfil our role. Best regards, Roberto
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: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 2:24 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:
+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 -----
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 14:39, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> wrote:
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 www.Innovatorsnetwork.org <http://www.innovatorsnetwork.org/>
------------------------------ *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 7, 2019 8:56:14 AM *To:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] New gTLD Applicant Support - improve it, or scrap it?
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.
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.
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 listCPWG@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.
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing listGTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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.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.
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.
I am extremely sympathetic to this perspective and most of all to the notion that we need to be more selective. I’ve never considered it my place to impose my will on this topic but, taking my facilitator hat off, I’m more or less in agreement with Evan on this. Community Priority Evaluation might be a little more complicated but, for the most part, folks don’t care about top level domains. Now to be fair, some arguments have been made here and elsewhere to support end user interest in such matters, in particular how they impact the creation of local infrastructure to support the domains. I think the most compelling argument is jurisdiction. Right now everyone has ccTLDs but they are considered be basically the property of government which carries with it some complexity in certain parts of the world. If, on the other hand, I could have a privately run gTLD that resides in my legal jurisdiction, that might give me some advantage. My local laws apply to conflicts Conflicts can be more easily resolved in my home jurisdiction If the domains I use frequently are all maintained elsewhere, I have a higher risk of some political squabble bringing down the sites about which I care the most. There haven’t been a ton of examples of this, perhaps Iran, but it’s certainly a possibility and would have downstream consequences for end users. Just a thought. J From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 10:49 PM To: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Cc: "cpwg@icann.org" <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] New gTLD Applicant Support - improve it, or scrap it? 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. 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. IMO, this is an issue of interest to other ICANN constituencies but the end-user constituency has no stake in how it is resolved. 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". Never once in the recent debate have I advocated that AS was inherently wrong. 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. 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 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. Cheers, - Evan
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 03:57, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote: I think the most compelling argument is jurisdiction. Right now everyone
has ccTLDs but they are considered be basically the property of government which carries with it some complexity in certain parts of the world. If, on the other hand, I could have a privately run gTLD that resides in my legal jurisdiction, that might give me some advantage.
This is an interesting point. As a way to start along this path, perhaps we could find out more about the motivations and experiences of those who chose continental TLDs (.eu, .africa, .asia) instead of local ccTLDs. I wonder if these registries would be supportive of such research? - Evan
perhaps we could find out more about the motivations and experiences of those who chose continental TLDs (.eu, .africa, .asia) instead of local ccTLDs. I wonder if these registries would be supportive of such research? I can reveal that the marketing strategy of DotAsia successfully focuses on people's diverse motivations for preferring to use .asia to their ccTLDs - and its an interesting story that Edmon and Pavan can tell. No doubt the other regional registries have similar tales. On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 10:15 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 03:57, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
I think the most compelling argument is jurisdiction. Right now everyone
has ccTLDs but they are considered be basically the property of government which carries with it some complexity in certain parts of the world. If, on the other hand, I could have a privately run gTLD that resides in my legal jurisdiction, that might give me some advantage.
This is an interesting point.
As a way to start along this path, perhaps we could find out more about the motivations and experiences of those who chose continental TLDs (.eu, .africa, .asia) instead of local ccTLDs. I wonder if these registries would be supportive of such research?
- 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.
Hi all. Once upon a time, in the early days of ALAC - actually, this discussion started even earlier, at the times of the General Assembly of the DNSO - most of us who were aiming at representing the instances of the end users believed that their interest about new TLDs was around the following lines: * new TLDs would introduce competition, bringing prices down and eventually allowing users to establish their presence on the internet owning a domain name; * new TLDs in a competitive market would favour innovation, therefore facilitating the introduction of new business models and new services that could be beneficial to users (including those who do not care about owning a domain name, that are the vast majority); * opening the market would make it easier to have registries and registrars operating in geopolitical areas that do not have (yet) enough presence, possibly addressing better the needs of the local user community. I don’t know whether there are other reasons, please feel free to add to this list. About the points above, I believe that the first one is nowadays moot. The introduction of competition at the TLD level has been “too little, too late” to affect the dominant position of one company, and in particular about the predominance of one TLD. Moreover, the introduction in later years of new forms of presence on the internet, like social media platforms, has greatly reduced the interest of owning a domain name for the purpose of establishing a presence in the net. In simple words, I do not believe that the proliferation of new TLD will be in itself of any help to the end users. Coming to innovation and new services, I fail to see great progress. Indeed, something has happened, I don’t want to belittle achievements, but by and large the result has not matched the expectations. Nevertheless, it is an area in which there is, potentially, an interest from the end users. Just to make an example, we can consider TLDs where the registrants are certified to be a legitimate business - like in .bank - therefore providing some protection against scams. Is this something worth investing ALAC’s time and resources? I am sure that we have different opinions on that. Let’s go to TLDs that are addressing specific needs of a local community, often but not always belonging to underserved regions. I personally consider IDNs in this category - maybe with a bit of a stretch. I would argue that in this case the end users have a real benefit, because we are talking by definition of availability of domain names that can be used by communities who would not have an alternative in the existing market. In the case of IDNs this is striking, as this is often also the vehicle for supporting local content. Some would argue that geo names would fall in this category - I have mixed feelings about this. My personal impression is that it all depends on how the geo TLD is used, what is its governance model, what is the role of the local community it claims to serve, and so on. That puts a serious difficulty for ALAC, because in order to support the initiatives we need to get into the details of the business model - and this is something that we should stay away from. I would welcome comments on this contribution, in particular from people whose opinions differ. BTW, from the above you can understand why, while I have generally speaking lost interest in the introduction of new TLDs affaire, I am concentrating my scarce time and resources to IDNs, Universal Acceptance, local content, and similar topics. Cheers, Roberto On 07.08.2019, at 07:48, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org<mailto:evan@telly.org>> wrote: 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. 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. IMO, this is an issue of interest to other ICANN constituencies but the end-user constituency has no stake in how it is resolved. 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". Never once in the recent debate have I advocated that AS was inherently wrong. 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. 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 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. Cheers, - Evan _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto: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.
participants (13)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Eduardo Diaz -
Evan Leibovitch -
Evan Leibovitch -
Holly Raiche -
Jonathan Zuck -
Justine Chew -
Maureen Hilyard -
Nadira Alaraj -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano -
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro -
Tijani BEN JEMAA