Kurt, To be clear, I am writing this as a member of the WG and not as the ALAC Chair, I do not support your suggestion as I believe that it is FAR out of scope for this WG. If some WG members choose to follow your advice in their personal capacity, that is their business. I also do not agree with your statement "Some of us were against the new gTLD program and others were not happy with the final policy or implementation. Does that mean they want to see the program fail? Of course not. The new gTLD program is the culmination of many years and many thousand people-hours of work." The only reason I had any support for the new gTLD program was because of IDNs, and since ICANN had no interest in opening a round just for IDNs, I reluctantly supported it (although I believed it was launched before it was ready for prime time). But my general lack of support does NOT imply I wanted it to fail. Linking not supporting the round with wanting it to fail puts those of us who had doubts in a inappropriately bad light. The registry proposal you cite might have been better received if it had not linked it to a significant registry fee reduction. Universal acceptance is worthy of our support. Advertising new gTLDs less so in my mind. If you and the RySG would care to explain the use of the term "seed fund" by explaining where the further contributions were to come from PERHAPS there would be something to discuss. Alan At 02/04/2017 06:16 PM, Kurt Pritz wrote:
Hi Jeff, Avri, et al:
I saw that this has been published. <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/diaz-to-atallah-et-al-14mar17-en.pdf>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/diaz-to-atallah-et-al-14mar17-en.pdf
The reason I am writing is in reference to the proposal that: âICANN create a fund, to be seeded with US$3M at start-up, to promote universal awareness of new gTLDs to the general Internet user community, and universal acceptance of new gTLDs across the Internet.â
In the past, when ICANN staff members have been asked in public fora to begin an effort to promote the use of domain names, the response has generally been that it is not ICANNâs role to promote the use of domain names and domain name registries.
To me, this is not an operations question; this is a policy question.
In the current environment, i.e., absent a policy statement, ICANN can easily proceed to take up the RySG recommendation, especially for this relatively small seed fund. I hope we all urge that ICANN do this.
However, if ICANN hesitates to take up an awareness campaign regarding the benefits of domain names (Including how they can be used and their efficacy as a strategic tool), then a policy statement could direct such an action.
ICANN is for two things, the allocation of domain names and IP addresses. Who else is to inform the largely ignorant public on the utility of domain names if not ICANN?
All of us argued about how best to introduce and govern domain name usage - but we are all in favor of domain name uptake and the safe and stable growth of the domain name industry. All of us show up at ICANN meetings to talk about the best way to delegate and register names. If we and ICANN are not for their usage - why be part of this?
Some of us were against the new gTLD program and others were not happy with the final policy or implementation. Does that mean they want to see the program fail? Of course not. The new gTLD program is the culmination of many years and many thousand people-hours of work.
With tools and resources for promoting public understanding of domain names readily available, I donât see how ICANN (the staff or the community) can sit idly by. With the cash surplus in hand, as Patton said, âwe are at the right time in the right place with the right instrument,â to do something to fortify the domain name system and industry.
During the slow process of launching new TLDs, search, apps and social media became strong competition for domain name adoption. It is time for us champions of domain names to use the tools at our disposal, including a small portion of that excess application fee cash, to create public awareness about the domain name industry that we have created.
My recommendation is that this PDP working group should form a team to consider this issue and make a separate recommendation to the GNSO Council in a timely manner. A separate team is justifiable because this effects the previous as well as the next round. I also think the current PDP working group can be more nimble as compared to the effort necessary to start a new policy discussion.
That recommendation could simply be a statement that it is the role of ICANN to promote awareness of domain names and the benefits of competition and choice in the domain name industry.
We can show that we can act.
Kurt
________________ Kurt Pritz <mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>kurt@kjpritz.com +1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:KZvlGkL7E8WPimuu+FxvIxSnlUl3zi71EzIyzsIm7iZ7hANfLa6K5qbjaXRzZUdLQdKP/7QSPxIDNYcp3+wqMZPB5Hz9B/I0onizKmo3ELc1+ZbhLCGLeRuQRIlalgovvmW950njFGZvEQ9FLz/oAQ== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028);
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg