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
The reason I am writing is in reference to the proposal that: “ICANN
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.”
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 ICANN’s 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 don’t see how ICANN (the staff or the
community) can sit idly by. With the cash surplus in hand, as
Patton said, “we are at the right time in the right place with the
right instrument,” 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
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