Re: [EURO-Discuss] [At-Large] UA Days
I have long maintained that UA is little more than a poorly executed marketing campaign, created to address ICANN's impotence at enforcing its decisions outside its bubble. Nothing in this discussion challenges that view. The ALAC take on this issue is rather focused, or at least it ought to be. We need to take the point of view of the Internet consumer whose point of entry (for the purposes of explicitly typing domain memorable names in any language) is almost always browsers or mobile apps. IDNs may indeed provide value to people who wish to use them to reach Internet destinations in their own language. But I'm still wary of any great effort to push them out to an Internet world that may neither want nor need them anymore. At most they are an add-on rather than necessity, since existing global Internet destinations (and the people who seek them) have had to figure out other ways so far (like the use of all-numeric domain names or QR codes). IDNs could have been world-changing a decade or more ago, now they're just late to the game and most of the world has moved on. Since it has no treaty or other enforcement mechanism, ICANN now has to rely on promotion. And UA days, nights, weeks and months of talking to ourselves are not going to do it. Social coercion? Really? That's just an unfunny joke. Is the plan to SHAME people into using IDNs? Good luck with that. That any within the ICANN community consider outreach to browser makers to be out of scope is just astounding; they are EXACTLY the entities most needed onboard if there are to be IDN buyers as well as sellers. In the absence of such outreach, browser makers aren't moving because browser USERS aren't asking for it; many other demands such as speed and security, ease-of-use and now AI assistants take priority. That's the problem with ICANN's IDN development process, which has been top-down -- driven by domain sellers -- rather than bottom-up, driven by domain users (registrants and Internet consumers). It's no surprise that the UASG does not consider end-users a pillar. As a result I really don't know if the idea has now gone past its expiration date, becoming a solution looking for a problem that no longer exists. As AI and NLP and voice recognition find their way ever deeper into apps and browsers, IDNs become less necessary to end-users by the day. I'm not convinced that the developed world really cares about (let alone knows) what the non-developed world really NEEDS, but we have this scheme that involves revenue from domain selling so OK! Having said all this, ALAC's mandate remains to present the PoV of end-users -- not domain sellers -- and we can assume that there are at least some that might still want IDNs. IMO, in their support, ALAC should be calling on ICANN to eliminate the useless and self-serving UA program and allocate those resources towards: 1. Appropriate market research so that we can all honestly determine whether IDNs have enough *end-user* and *registrant* demand to justify additional resources and indeed new IDN registries. 2. Explicit outreach and resource support to the developers of app makers and browsers (and any other end-user-facing Internet interfaces) because without them onboard most of the rest is pointless 3. IF the market research confirms demand, create a browser/app IDN certification program and promote that to the public, to drive bottom-up demand. Cheers, - Evan PS: @Alfredo ... given that embedded devices don't need to use "memorable" or even human-parsable domain names, I'm not sure how IDNs serve IoT at all, indeed their support adds needless complexity when code space is minimal. Besides, in its current state ICANN is in no position to force anyone (outside of contracted parties) to do anything. @Roberto, I want to actually hear from those farmers in Bangladesh, not anyone pretending to guess their needs. Do they really need IDNs or are we just projecting? Are there better solutions? I might suggest that many are doing just fine on the Internet of today without IDNs, thanks to search engines and other innovations. I had some very eye-opening experiences when working a few years at UNHCR, that taught me how how resourceful and innovative people can be in the tightest of circumstances. I would not presume to know anyone's actual needs without asking them. And tweaked Internet domain names are not the only, or even the best, answer to remote accessibility challenges.
Evan, IDNs are good for outdoor, TV and radio ads. Also search engines handle IDN pretty well. It means good business for domain sellers, brands and SMEs. End users, especially in developing countries, carry their smartphones with helpful apps (multiple reports available). They might not know what the domain name is. Should they? ) --andrei On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 1:11 PM Evan Leibovitch via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
I have long maintained that UA is little more than a poorly executed marketing campaign, created to address ICANN's impotence at enforcing its decisions outside its bubble. Nothing in this discussion challenges that view.
The ALAC take on this issue is rather focused, or at least it ought to be. We need to take the point of view of the Internet consumer whose point of entry (for the purposes of explicitly typing domain memorable names in any language) is almost always browsers or mobile apps.
IDNs may indeed provide value to people who wish to use them to reach Internet destinations in their own language. But I'm still wary of any great effort to push them out to an Internet world that may neither want nor need them anymore. At most they are an add-on rather than necessity, since existing global Internet destinations (and the people who seek them) have had to figure out other ways so far (like the use of all-numeric domain names or QR codes). IDNs could have been world-changing a decade or more ago, now they're just late to the game and most of the world has moved on. Since it has no treaty or other enforcement mechanism, ICANN now has to rely on promotion. And UA days, nights, weeks and months of talking to ourselves are not going to do it.
Social coercion? Really? That's just an unfunny joke. Is the plan to SHAME people into using IDNs? Good luck with that.
That any within the ICANN community consider outreach to browser makers to be out of scope is just astounding; they are EXACTLY the entities most needed onboard if there are to be IDN buyers as well as sellers. In the absence of such outreach, browser makers aren't moving because browser USERS aren't asking for it; many other demands such as speed and security, ease-of-use and now AI assistants take priority. That's the problem with ICANN's IDN development process, which has been top-down -- driven by domain sellers -- rather than bottom-up, driven by domain users (registrants and Internet consumers). It's no surprise that the UASG does not consider end-users a pillar. As a result I really don't know if the idea has now gone past its expiration date, becoming a solution looking for a problem that no longer exists. As AI and NLP and voice recognition find their way ever deeper into apps and browsers, IDNs become less necessary to end-users by the day. I'm not convinced that the developed world really cares about (let alone knows) what the non-developed world really NEEDS, but we have this scheme that involves revenue from domain selling so OK!
Having said all this, ALAC's mandate remains to present the PoV of end-users -- not domain sellers -- and we can assume that there are at least some that might still want IDNs. IMO, in their support, ALAC should be calling on ICANN to eliminate the useless and self-serving UA program and allocate those resources towards:
1. Appropriate market research so that we can all honestly determine whether IDNs have enough *end-user* and *registrant* demand to justify additional resources and indeed new IDN registries. 2. Explicit outreach and resource support to the developers of app makers and browsers (and any other end-user-facing Internet interfaces) because without them onboard most of the rest is pointless 3. IF the market research confirms demand, create a browser/app IDN certification program and promote that to the public, to drive bottom-up demand.
Cheers, - Evan
PS: @Alfredo ... given that embedded devices don't need to use "memorable" or even human-parsable domain names, I'm not sure how IDNs serve IoT at all, indeed their support adds needless complexity when code space is minimal. Besides, in its current state ICANN is in no position to force anyone (outside of contracted parties) to do anything.
@Roberto, I want to actually hear from those farmers in Bangladesh, not anyone pretending to guess their needs. Do they really need IDNs or are we just projecting? Are there better solutions? I might suggest that many are doing just fine on the Internet of today without IDNs, thanks to search engines and other innovations. I had some very eye-opening experiences when working a few years at UNHCR, that taught me how how resourceful and innovative people can be in the tightest of circumstances. I would not presume to know anyone's actual needs without asking them. And tweaked Internet domain names are not the only, or even the best, answer to remote accessibility challenges. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ 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.
-- Andrey Kolesnikov IOTAS.RU
Without doing much analysis, there are hundreds of places in the world that require IDN. And precisely those places are the most populated in the world and where the vast majority are "disconnected." There is no AI there. And if the rest of the world is not interested, at least they are interested so they can communicate with each other. And they are end users. These regions are so large and without available technology, that conducting a needs survey or justification of the need for IDN would be much more expensive than implementing IDN. Greetings Alberto De: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> En nombre de Andrei Kolesnikov via At-Large Enviado el: lunes, 1 de abril de 2024 11:02 Para: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> CC: EURALO Discuss <euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; At Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Asunto: Re: [At-Large] UA Days Evan, IDNs are good for outdoor, TV and radio ads. Also search engines handle IDN pretty well. It means good business for domain sellers, brands and SMEs. End users, especially in developing countries, carry their smartphones with helpful apps (multiple reports available). They might not know what the domain name is. Should they? ) --andrei On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 1:11 PM Evan Leibovitch via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > wrote: I have long maintained that UA is little more than a poorly executed marketing campaign, created to address ICANN's impotence at enforcing its decisions outside its bubble. Nothing in this discussion challenges that view. The ALAC take on this issue is rather focused, or at least it ought to be. We need to take the point of view of the Internet consumer whose point of entry (for the purposes of explicitly typing domain memorable names in any language) is almost always browsers or mobile apps. IDNs may indeed provide value to people who wish to use them to reach Internet destinations in their own language. But I'm still wary of any great effort to push them out to an Internet world that may neither want nor need them anymore. At most they are an add-on rather than necessity, since existing global Internet destinations (and the people who seek them) have had to figure out other ways so far (like the use of all-numeric domain names or QR codes). IDNs could have been world-changing a decade or more ago, now they're just late to the game and most of the world has moved on. Since it has no treaty or other enforcement mechanism, ICANN now has to rely on promotion. And UA days, nights, weeks and months of talking to ourselves are not going to do it. Social coercion? Really? That's just an unfunny joke. Is the plan to SHAME people into using IDNs? Good luck with that. That any within the ICANN community consider outreach to browser makers to be out of scope is just astounding; they are EXACTLY the entities most needed onboard if there are to be IDN buyers as well as sellers. In the absence of such outreach, browser makers aren't moving because browser USERS aren't asking for it; many other demands such as speed and security, ease-of-use and now AI assistants take priority. That's the problem with ICANN's IDN development process, which has been top-down -- driven by domain sellers -- rather than bottom-up, driven by domain users (registrants and Internet consumers). It's no surprise that the UASG does not consider end-users a pillar. As a result I really don't know if the idea has now gone past its expiration date, becoming a solution looking for a problem that no longer exists. As AI and NLP and voice recognition find their way ever deeper into apps and browsers, IDNs become less necessary to end-users by the day. I'm not convinced that the developed world really cares about (let alone knows) what the non-developed world really NEEDS, but we have this scheme that involves revenue from domain selling so OK! Having said all this, ALAC's mandate remains to present the PoV of end-users -- not domain sellers -- and we can assume that there are at least some that might still want IDNs. IMO, in their support, ALAC should be calling on ICANN to eliminate the useless and self-serving UA program and allocate those resources towards: 1. Appropriate market research so that we can all honestly determine whether IDNs have enough end-user and registrant demand to justify additional resources and indeed new IDN registries. 2. Explicit outreach and resource support to the developers of app makers and browsers (and any other end-user-facing Internet interfaces) because without them onboard most of the rest is pointless 3. IF the market research confirms demand, create a browser/app IDN certification program and promote that to the public, to drive bottom-up demand. Cheers, - Evan PS: @Alfredo ... given that embedded devices don't need to use "memorable" or even human-parsable domain names, I'm not sure how IDNs serve IoT at all, indeed their support adds needless complexity when code space is minimal. Besides, in its current state ICANN is in no position to force anyone (outside of contracted parties) to do anything. @Roberto, I want to actually hear from those farmers in Bangladesh, not anyone pretending to guess their needs. Do they really need IDNs or are we just projecting? Are there better solutions? I might suggest that many are doing just fine on the Internet of today without IDNs, thanks to search engines and other innovations. I had some very eye-opening experiences when working a few years at UNHCR, that taught me how how resourceful and innovative people can be in the tightest of circumstances. I would not presume to know anyone's actual needs without asking them. And tweaked Internet domain names are not the only, or even the best, answer to remote accessibility challenges. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ 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. -- Andrey Kolesnikov IOTAS.RU <http://IOTAS.RU>
On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 10:18 AM <alberto@soto.net.ar> wrote:
Without doing much analysis, there are hundreds of places in the world that require IDN.
Sorry, but I do not take such an assertion at face value, and neither should anyone here. *What is the evidence?* All I encounter is guesswork and wishful thinking. The preface "without doing much analysis" speaks volumes about acting on faith rather than fact. Said analysis is desperately needed. And precisely those places are the most populated in the world and where
the vast majority are "disconnected." There is no AI there.
I do not understand this assertion, it seems to me outrageous and likely ill-informed. If you have Internet, you have access to AI. (And, more ominously, it has access to you -- but that's a very different discussion.) If you don't have Internet, the problem is not domain names but lack of physical infrastructure -- cables, towers, satellite receivers, affordable devices, etc. Let's please be accurate here; domain names are an insignificant component of connecting the unconnected. For two years I had a UN contract where the job task was literally connecting the unconnected. In that time I observed that many in the barely-connected world have access to little more than Facebook and WhatsApp, which meet many needs in local languages. This situation, not without controversy, is accelerated by initiatives such as Meta's Free Basics <https://www.facebook.com/connectivity/solutions/free-basics/> which provide funding for physical infrastructure in return for monopolizing the user experience of those connected. Mobile money and microfinance are more likely to be done by SMS than Internet. In these environments knowledge of domains -- ASCII or IDN -- is absolutely irrelevant. I witnessed this myself first-hand in environments where many tens of thousands of people had to share a single 3G cell tower. I invite you to *prove* me wrong. Sure there is use for IDNs, but framing them as an international development issue is IMO disingenuous and not backed by evidence. - Evan
Evan, I didn't want to go into details. The majority of those disconnected are in countries that at some point were called third world. Many without access, others with very poor access where it does not matter if there is AI or not. And there are many millions of end users. I'm not supposed to prove you wrong, nor am I saying you're misinformed. I am pragmatic and I believe that time should not be wasted. Greetings Alberto De: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> Enviado el: lunes, 1 de abril de 2024 13:25 Para: alberto@soto.net.ar CC: Andrei Kolesnikov <andrei@rol.ru>; EURALO Discuss <euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; At Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Asunto: Re: [At-Large] UA Days On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 10:18 AM <alberto@soto.net.ar <mailto:alberto@soto.net.ar> > wrote: Without doing much analysis, there are hundreds of places in the world that require IDN. Sorry, but I do not take such an assertion at face value, and neither should anyone here. What is the evidence? All I encounter is guesswork and wishful thinking. The preface "without doing much analysis" speaks volumes about acting on faith rather than fact. Said analysis is desperately needed. And precisely those places are the most populated in the world and where the vast majority are "disconnected." There is no AI there. I do not understand this assertion, it seems to me outrageous and likely ill-informed. If you have Internet, you have access to AI. (And, more ominously, it has access to you -- but that's a very different discussion.) If you don't have Internet, the problem is not domain names but lack of physical infrastructure -- cables, towers, satellite receivers, affordable devices, etc. Let's please be accurate here; domain names are an insignificant component of connecting the unconnected. For two years I had a UN contract where the job task was literally connecting the unconnected. In that time I observed that many in the barely-connected world have access to little more than Facebook and WhatsApp, which meet many needs in local languages. This situation, not without controversy, is accelerated by initiatives such as Meta's Free Basics <https://www.facebook.com/connectivity/solutions/free-basics/> which provide funding for physical infrastructure in return for monopolizing the user experience of those connected. Mobile money and microfinance are more likely to be done by SMS than Internet. In these environments knowledge of domains -- ASCII or IDN -- is absolutely irrelevant. I witnessed this myself first-hand in environments where many tens of thousands of people had to share a single 3G cell tower. I invite you to prove me wrong. Sure there is use for IDNs, but framing them as an international development issue is IMO disingenuous and not backed by evidence. - Evan
On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 12:44 PM <alberto@soto.net.ar> wrote:
Evan, I didn't want to go into details.
That's because none exist. The majority of those disconnected are in countries that at some point were
called third world.
What they're called is irrelevant. Many without access, others with very poor access where it does not matter
if there is AI or not. And there are many millions of end users.
I'm not supposed to prove you wrong, nor am I saying you're misinformed. I am pragmatic and I believe that time should not be wasted.
There is nothing pragmatic about the status quo, it is a guaranteed path to wasted money and a complete failure to accomplish objectives. Consider how little has been accomplished to date, given Hank's experience -- talk about wasted time! I still await evidence that the current path is founded on anything beyond projection and wishful thinking, guessing what unconnected users need from a detached reality away.. Cheers, - Evan
Dear all, I would like to start by making clear what I believe marks the difference between my Weltanschauung and Evan’s, before trying to find where there is room for a constructive discussion. I have tried what I could, from taking a deep breath, counting to 10 - 100 or 1000, let the matter aside and come back to the email a couple of hours later, but I can’t help being deeply annoyed by statements made by people interacting with the Internet - as tool as well as community - in their comfort zone, using their mother tongue and their script, about how this is not a problem for who does not have this luxury because there are workarounds that they can use. As I have stated many times, I believe that “Internet is for everyone” means that everybody should have the same ease of use and interaction regardless the difference they have from the dominant model. This includes the right of having their digital identity - like a web site or an email address - being usable and accessible regardless the fact that there are other possibilities or turnarounds, or even other ways to assert their digital identity. This is my red line, that I will never cross. Going to a possible constructive discussion, I do agree with Evan that money could be spent in a better way. It is true that I have taken for granted - many years ago - that the introduction of IDNs would have been the panacea to the inequalities in the Internet world. Of course, we all knew that there are bigger problems, like accessibility, costs, speed, material, etc., but at least I thought we could move in the good direction. I agree that we need to rethink the strategy, I find the three points listed by Evan are at least worth a discussion within At-Large - I paste them here for convenience: 1. Appropriate market research so that we can all honestly determine whether IDNs have enough end-user and registrant demand to justify additional resources and indeed new IDN registries. 2. Explicit outreach and resource support to the developers of app makers and browsers (and any other end-user-facing Internet interfaces) because without them onboard most of the rest is pointless 3. IF the market research confirms demand, create a browser/app IDN certification program and promote that to the public, to drive bottom-up demand. This said, I maintain that in the meantime there is room for At-Large to get organised to put pressure on providers to become UA-ready. I don’t think that the two actions are mutually exclusive, quite the contrary: on one hand to correct what is a current dysfunction of the system and on the other hand to work on the strategy for the next phase. Best regards, Roberto PS: the Bangladesh farmer was an example I used to make sure I did not misunderstood Karl’s point. As it turned out, I did in effect misunderstand - now it is all set. This said, I do not know farmers in Bangladesh, but have often spoken to people in underserved communities and, although they might have even bigger problem, often the language and script limitations are indicated as one. And I don’t feel like dismissing them just because they can survive anyway. On 01.04.2024, at 12:10, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote: I have long maintained that UA is little more than a poorly executed marketing campaign, created to address ICANN's impotence at enforcing its decisions outside its bubble. Nothing in this discussion challenges that view. The ALAC take on this issue is rather focused, or at least it ought to be. We need to take the point of view of the Internet consumer whose point of entry (for the purposes of explicitly typing domain memorable names in any language) is almost always browsers or mobile apps. IDNs may indeed provide value to people who wish to use them to reach Internet destinations in their own language. But I'm still wary of any great effort to push them out to an Internet world that may neither want nor need them anymore. At most they are an add-on rather than necessity, since existing global Internet destinations (and the people who seek them) have had to figure out other ways so far (like the use of all-numeric domain names or QR codes). IDNs could have been world-changing a decade or more ago, now they're just late to the game and most of the world has moved on. Since it has no treaty or other enforcement mechanism, ICANN now has to rely on promotion. And UA days, nights, weeks and months of talking to ourselves are not going to do it. Social coercion? Really? That's just an unfunny joke. Is the plan to SHAME people into using IDNs? Good luck with that. That any within the ICANN community consider outreach to browser makers to be out of scope is just astounding; they are EXACTLY the entities most needed onboard if there are to be IDN buyers as well as sellers. In the absence of such outreach, browser makers aren't moving because browser USERS aren't asking for it; many other demands such as speed and security, ease-of-use and now AI assistants take priority. That's the problem with ICANN's IDN development process, which has been top-down -- driven by domain sellers -- rather than bottom-up, driven by domain users (registrants and Internet consumers). It's no surprise that the UASG does not consider end-users a pillar. As a result I really don't know if the idea has now gone past its expiration date, becoming a solution looking for a problem that no longer exists. As AI and NLP and voice recognition find their way ever deeper into apps and browsers, IDNs become less necessary to end-users by the day. I'm not convinced that the developed world really cares about (let alone knows) what the non-developed world really NEEDS, but we have this scheme that involves revenue from domain selling so OK! Having said all this, ALAC's mandate remains to present the PoV of end-users -- not domain sellers -- and we can assume that there are at least some that might still want IDNs. IMO, in their support, ALAC should be calling on ICANN to eliminate the useless and self-serving UA program and allocate those resources towards: 1. Appropriate market research so that we can all honestly determine whether IDNs have enough end-user and registrant demand to justify additional resources and indeed new IDN registries. 2. Explicit outreach and resource support to the developers of app makers and browsers (and any other end-user-facing Internet interfaces) because without them onboard most of the rest is pointless 3. IF the market research confirms demand, create a browser/app IDN certification program and promote that to the public, to drive bottom-up demand. Cheers, - Evan PS: @Alfredo ... given that embedded devices don't need to use "memorable" or even human-parsable domain names, I'm not sure how IDNs serve IoT at all, indeed their support adds needless complexity when code space is minimal. Besides, in its current state ICANN is in no position to force anyone (outside of contracted parties) to do anything. @Roberto, I want to actually hear from those farmers in Bangladesh, not anyone pretending to guess their needs. Do they really need IDNs or are we just projecting? Are there better solutions? I might suggest that many are doing just fine on the Internet of today without IDNs, thanks to search engines and other innovations. I had some very eye-opening experiences when working a few years at UNHCR, that taught me how how resourceful and innovative people can be in the tightest of circumstances. I would not presume to know anyone's actual needs without asking them. And tweaked Internet domain names are not the only, or even the best, answer to remote accessibility challenges.
Echoing some of what Evan said a worthwhile role of at-large would be to act as a repository and producer of facts, data, and analyses about internet usage as pertains to ICANN's mission. These could range from literature surveys, surely there must be mountains of research out there, to sponsoring data collection and analyses by domain (in the general sense) experts where lacking. Otherwise it just becomes a talking club: people of varying capabilities spouting about what they believe to be true and debating those beliefs among themselves mostly with little or no result -- another social media outlet with no product and no persistence. I could imagine, for example, quarterly and annual, etc ("intelligencers"), summaries of the state of the world which is affected by ICANN's mission. I know, sounds too much like real work. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
It was certainly not my intention to cause upset, apologies for that. At a certain point, all of us here who understand the function of the DNS and the processes of ICANN are already in a kind of elite position that has us out of touch with the Internet's underserved to various extents. I had the opportunity to serve in a role of providing connectivity in African and Latin American refugee camps under contract to UNHCR for a number of years, so I have first-hand experience with many of the challenges and solutions at play in such environments. But that is certainly not the same as living there. That is why I advocate so strongly for the need for evidence and research, to not take Roberto's word or mine or anyone else's here on faith, but to honestly investigate the needs of the underserved and the available solutions. It is also why I strongly reject Alfredo's stated approach to policy, choosing the path of least resistance under the guise of "practicality". At best such an approach will maintain the status quo and at worst will cause decline. On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 4:49 PM Roberto Gaetano via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote: As I have stated many times, I believe that “Internet is for everyone”
means that everybody should have the same ease of use and interaction regardless the difference they have from the dominant model. This includes the right of having their digital identity - like a web site or an email address - being usable and accessible regardless the fact that there are other possibilities or turnarounds, or even other ways to assert their digital identity. This is my red line, that I will never cross.
I agree violently with Roberto that access to the Internet and digital identity must be universal, I would even call it an aspirational human right. Where we differ is in the suitability of a DNS-based domain name for that purpose. To me, domain names are among the most expensive and least sustainable forms of Internet identity currently available. Memorable domain names serve numerous roles, but personal identity is among their weakest. There are many, MANY reasons for this, but the most obvious is that your Internet identity must not demand an annual fee, which if left unpaid (even by accident) can be acquired by someone else. To me the line demanding that everyone has access to an Internet domain is not only not red, it is drawn with dust. There are many other ways to claim a digital identity, almost all of them superior to Internet domains. Most of them are free of cost (let alone annual fee). And a number of them, such as OpenSSL and Mastodon accounts, do not require putting your identity in the hands of a commercial organization that profits from use (or spread) of personal information. We must also acknowledge the effect of progress and technical evolution. New forms of digital identity exist now that weren't dreamed of 20 years ago but dominate today. My children hate using email and my grandchildren don't know what email is, but they are all very well connected. What they do use, from Signal to Discord to Xing to WhatsApp to Wechat, all have flat namespaces and (critical to the UA discussion) most are quite happy with Unicode characters in IDs. Generally only global trademark holders care about "memorable" IDs because everyone can use aliases for which duplicates are OK. And if all you need is chat and finance, even SMS suffices for identity if you choose not to fully connect (and that choice must be available too). These are not stopgap or compromise solutions, they are indeed the mainstream accessible forms of digital identity today and it is Internet domains that are the archaic and inferior alternative. (It is these IDs that I put in my standard signature, not my phone or email.) The rise of AI in general use only accelerates the decline of domains as identity. I assert that this reality is a primary reason that IDNs have such poor uptake from consumers and app developers, the interest for them primarily comes from financially-interested domain sellers and not from anyone needing an identity. There is simply too little bottom-up consumer demand, a phenomenon that we in At-Large must comprehend to adequately represent the end-user PoV on the issues of IDNs and UA. But, as I said before, this is only my opinion, even though I believe it to be well-informed by first-hand experience. Let's get some evidence. Cheers, -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56
It was certainly not my intention to cause upset, apologies for that. At a certain point, all of us here who understand the function of the DNS and the processes of ICANN are already in a kind of elite position that has us out of touch with the Internet's underserved to various extents. I had the opportunity to serve in a role of providing connectivity in African and Latin American refugee camps under contract to UNHCR for a number of years, so I have first-hand experience with many of the challenges and solutions at play in such environments. But that is certainly not the same as living there. That is why I advocate so strongly for the need for evidence and research, to not take Roberto's word or mine or anyone else's here on faith, but to honestly investigate the needs of the underserved and the available solutions. It is also why I strongly reject Alfredo's stated approach to policy, choosing the path of least resistance under the guise of "practicality". At best such an approach will maintain the status quo and at worst will cause decline. On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 4:49 PM Roberto Gaetano via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote: As I have stated many times, I believe that “Internet is for everyone”
means that everybody should have the same ease of use and interaction regardless the difference they have from the dominant model. This includes the right of having their digital identity - like a web site or an email address - being usable and accessible regardless the fact that there are other possibilities or turnarounds, or even other ways to assert their digital identity. This is my red line, that I will never cross.
I agree violently with Roberto that access to the Internet and digital identity must be universal, I would even call it an aspirational human right. Where we differ is in the suitability of a DNS-based domain name for that purpose. To me, domain names are among the most expensive and least sustainable forms of Internet identity currently available. Memorable domain names serve numerous roles, but personal identity is among their weakest. There are many, MANY reasons for this, but the most obvious is that your Internet identity must not demand an annual fee, which if left unpaid (even by accident) can be acquired by someone else. To me the line demanding that everyone has access to an Internet domain is not only not red, it is drawn with dust. There are many other ways to claim a digital identity, almost all of them superior to Internet domains. Most of them are free of cost (let alone annual fee). And a number of them, such as OpenSSL and Mastodon accounts, do not require putting your identity in the hands of a commercial organization that profits from use (or spread) of personal information. We must also acknowledge the effect of progress and technical evolution. New forms of digital identity exist now that weren't dreamed of 20 years ago but dominate today. My children hate using email and my grandchildren don't know what email is, but they are all very well connected. What they do use, from Signal to Discord to Xing to WhatsApp to Wechat, all have flat namespaces and (critical to the UA discussion) most are quite happy with Unicode characters in IDs. Generally only global trademark holders care about "memorable" IDs because everyone can use aliases for which duplicates are OK. And if all you need is chat and finance, even SMS suffices for identity if you choose not to fully connect (and that choice must be available too). These are not stopgap or compromise solutions, they are indeed the mainstream accessible forms of digital identity today and it is Internet domains that are the archaic and inferior alternative. (It is these IDs that I put in my standard signature, not my phone or email.) The rise of AI in general use only accelerates the decline of domains as identity. I assert that this reality is a primary reason that IDNs have such poor uptake from consumers and app developers, the interest for them primarily comes from financially-interested domain sellers and not from anyone needing an identity. There is simply too little bottom-up consumer demand, a phenomenon that we in At-Large must comprehend to adequately represent the end-user PoV on the issues of IDNs and UA. But, as I said before, this is only my opinion, even though I believe it to be well-informed by first-hand experience. I await being disproven. Let's get some evidence. Cheers, -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56
Correction: On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 1:51 PM Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote:
That is why I advocate so strongly for the need for evidence and research, to not take Roberto's word or mine or anyone else's here on faith, but to honestly investigate the needs of the underserved and the available solutions. It is also why I strongly reject Alfredo's stated approach to policy, choosing the path of least resistance under the guise of "practicality". At best such an approach will maintain the status quo and at worst will cause decline.
Upon re-reading the thread I realize that it was Alberto, not Alfredo, who made that ill-advised appeal to pragmatism. Sorry. - Evan
participants (5)
-
alberto＠soto.net.ar -
Andrei Kolesnikov -
bzs＠theworld.com -
Evan Leibovitch -
Roberto Gaetano