Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
This was a general statement of discussion, not an attempt to convey an opinion derived through social science. One thing I don't need a poll to tell me, though, is that anecdotal evidence presented by someone who is directly lobbying on behalf of his own considerable financial interests should be taken with a tablespoon of salt. -----Original Message-----
From: Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc> Sent: Mar 31, 2011 6:46 PM To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> Cc: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@me.com>, na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
I'm not sure I understand this -- is the will of the end-user decided by ad-hoc polling? If so, my own anecdotal evidence is quite different, and opposite. I'm very confident about my polling, and I'm putting my money on the line to back it up.
What about the the 600K registrants in .CO? Are they all either profiteers or deluded by smoke and mirrors?
If not private polling, how exactly are the desires of the end-user determined?
Antony
On Mar 31, 2011, at 5:51 PM, Beau Brendler wrote:
It is interesting to note Antony's chronology, and the observation that as ALAC has grown more democratic and less appointed, it has cooled to the gTLD hysteria about gTLDs shared by ICANN's more-vested interests.<
Another factor I suspect is that a number of members of the ALAC who had their own self-interest in new gTLDs have moved on, or the financial interests are no longer there.
I can't think of a single end-user I have encountered over the last decade who has given a damn about access to new top-level domains. Rather, they want to know which existing domains are "safer" than others. I have talked to some "content" providers, for lack of a better term, who are interested in .health, and I can clearly see their reasons, as well as .gay and .trust (signed domain/DNSSEC for banking).
-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Sent: Mar 31, 2011 3:51 PM To: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@me.com> Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
On 31 March 2011 13:52, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@me.com> wrote:
You don't see this as a major problem for deferred applicants, whereas I think it would be very harmful to some applicants (and their prospective users).
Whether I see this (deferral) as a major problem for applicants is fairly irrelevant. This is At-Large, after all, which exists to protect the interests of end-users of the Internet who, by and large, are not even registrants. They're not even part of the ICANN food chain.
I care more about harm to end users than I care about harm to applicants. And end user concerns are VERY, VERY different.
So basing any argument here about
You have not demonstrated (sufficiently to me, at least) that end users are harmed by delay. Not registrants, end users.
Is there ANY instance that one could name in which the public has been deprived of original Internet content because of limitations of the existing namespace?
It is interesting to note Antony's chronology, and the observation that as ALAC has grown more democratic and less appointed, it has cooled to the gTLD hysteria about gTLDs shared by ICANN's more-vested interests. Correlation does not necessarily infer causality, but I do think there's a definite connection here. The more At-Large reflects the Internet end user, and the more that the end user community knows about ICANN, the less it cares about the panic rush for more TLDs.
The only exception to this is the IDN fast track for ccTLDs, which did have end-user demand (and my full support).
- Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
It would be lovely to have a substantive discussion of the issues instead of continual recourse to the well-established, well-known, and unhidden fact that I am unabashedly hoping to run a successful registry business. Anecdotal evidence isn't worth a tablespoon of anything, whether they are my anecdotes or someone else's. I'm reading with some astonishment assertions about what end-users think, how they value safety above variety and diversity, and I would be curious to see any evidence of that. I have presented as evidence for my case the incredible uptake of .CO, and to that I could the success of the Cyrillic .RF. On what basis do you say that users "don't give a damn" about new TLDs? I scour the Internet for such facts, because (as you continually point out) I have an interest. I'm very keen to see any evidence. Do you have any? Antony On Mar 31, 2011, at 7:17 PM, Beau Brendler wrote:
This was a general statement of discussion, not an attempt to convey an opinion derived through social science.
One thing I don't need a poll to tell me, though, is that anecdotal evidence presented by someone who is directly lobbying on behalf of his own considerable financial interests should be taken with a tablespoon of salt.
-----Original Message-----
From: Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc> Sent: Mar 31, 2011 6:46 PM To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> Cc: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@me.com>, na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
I'm not sure I understand this -- is the will of the end-user decided by ad-hoc polling? If so, my own anecdotal evidence is quite different, and opposite. I'm very confident about my polling, and I'm putting my money on the line to back it up.
What about the the 600K registrants in .CO? Are they all either profiteers or deluded by smoke and mirrors?
If not private polling, how exactly are the desires of the end-user determined?
Antony
On Mar 31, 2011, at 5:51 PM, Beau Brendler wrote:
It is interesting to note Antony's chronology, and the observation that as ALAC has grown more democratic and less appointed, it has cooled to the gTLD hysteria about gTLDs shared by ICANN's more-vested interests.<
Another factor I suspect is that a number of members of the ALAC who had their own self-interest in new gTLDs have moved on, or the financial interests are no longer there.
I can't think of a single end-user I have encountered over the last decade who has given a damn about access to new top-level domains. Rather, they want to know which existing domains are "safer" than others. I have talked to some "content" providers, for lack of a better term, who are interested in .health, and I can clearly see their reasons, as well as .gay and .trust (signed domain/DNSSEC for banking).
-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Sent: Mar 31, 2011 3:51 PM To: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@me.com> Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
On 31 March 2011 13:52, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@me.com> wrote:
You don't see this as a major problem for deferred applicants, whereas I think it would be very harmful to some applicants (and their prospective users).
Whether I see this (deferral) as a major problem for applicants is fairly irrelevant. This is At-Large, after all, which exists to protect the interests of end-users of the Internet who, by and large, are not even registrants. They're not even part of the ICANN food chain.
I care more about harm to end users than I care about harm to applicants. And end user concerns are VERY, VERY different.
So basing any argument here about
You have not demonstrated (sufficiently to me, at least) that end users are harmed by delay. Not registrants, end users.
Is there ANY instance that one could name in which the public has been deprived of original Internet content because of limitations of the existing namespace?
It is interesting to note Antony's chronology, and the observation that as ALAC has grown more democratic and less appointed, it has cooled to the gTLD hysteria about gTLDs shared by ICANN's more-vested interests. Correlation does not necessarily infer causality, but I do think there's a definite connection here. The more At-Large reflects the Internet end user, and the more that the end user community knows about ICANN, the less it cares about the panic rush for more TLDs.
The only exception to this is the IDN fast track for ccTLDs, which did have end-user demand (and my full support).
- Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
participants (2)
-
Antony Van Couvering -
Beau Brendler