[At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista

[Kan Kaili]

Hi, Holly,

In addition, as CCT-RT's initial report asked to collect more data, the Board's comment reminded the team to avoid expensive data collecting.  As I remember, that was the Board's only formal reply to CCT-RT's initial report.  This is on top of objections from contracted parties citing business confidentiality.  

Thus, collecting much more data for a more thorough analysis would not seem to be easy, at least for the time being.

Kaili


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez 
  To: at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org ; h.raiche at internode.on.net ; mail at christopherwilkinson.eu CW ; At-Large Worldwide ; John Laprise 
  Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 4:23 PM
  Subject: Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista


  Dear Holly,

  The only data the CCT RT found at it's inception, was the first round of a (very expensive) qualitative survey. And even that one had to be adapted for the wonderful round.

  In fact, many initial recommensations of the CCT RT were to ask for reasonable quantitative market data series. Very much aligned with the desire to make ICANN a data driven organization.

  We all are on the sidelines expecting good hard market (wholesale and retail) data and the output of so many other efforts and new job descriptions that continue to accumulate.

  Best


  On July 15, 2018 2:35:24 PM GMT+02:00, h.raiche at internode.on.net wrote:
    Agree with both John and Christopher.


    The reports on Competition, Consumer choice and Trust was supposed to give us a good picture on those aspects of the outcomes of the new gTLD program and, so some extend, there are some answers, but there are also a lot of blanks.  And yes, it would be good to see a final analysis of the new gTLDs.


    But then ALAC has, for some time, said we would like to see final results of the first round before anything more happens.....


    Holly




      ----- Original Message -----
      From:
      "mail at christopherwilkinson.eu CW" <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu>

      To:
      "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "John Laprise" <jlaprise at gmail.com>

      Cc:


      Sent:
      Sat, 14 Jul 2018 20:59:45 +0200 (CEST)

      Subject:
      Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista



      Dear John:

      Thankyou. In so far as your feelings about the new gTLDs mirror those of others, I agree. However, as a 'facts-based' economist I would really like to see a statistical report from ICANN about the results, business and otherwise, of the 2012 programme. 

      It is not reassuring that GNSO is going so far down the road towards the 'next round' in the absence of a serious appraisal of the results of the previous round. 

      > I've seen no evidence to date that new gTLD usage is approaching that of legacy gTLDs or ccTLDs nor evidence that this is likely to change.

      Well, depending on your definition of the 'legacy', with one major exception.

      Best regards

      cw at christopherwilkinson.eu

        El 14 de julio de 2018 a las 16:08 John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com> escribió:

        My two cents:


        The failure if new gTLDs is only a concern to ICANN and at large to the extent that it negatively impacts the security and stability (S&S) of the internet. A minority of end users are interested in acquiring a new gTLD and for them, we want to make the process simple and straightforward while not endangering S&S. 


        I've seen no evidence to date that new gTLD usage is approaching that of legacy gTLDs or ccTLDs nor evidence that this is likely to change. New gTLDs are the narrow tip of the TLD long tail distribution. End user trust/habit will likely continue to preference more well established (older) TLDs rather than new ones. Their likely failure and aggregation if anything should be anticipated. If anything, ICANN should have recourse to reclaim new gTLDs that are acquired but lie fallow and go unused (owner of new gTLD fails to execute their business plan) and make them available to others. ICANN should discourage new gTLD squatting. 


        The failure of new gTLDs for business reasons is frankly not ICANN's or at large's concern. In this sense ICANN needn't gave rounds for new gTLDs but rather have an ongoing process that enables new gTLD granting/creation in an ongoing basis along with evaluation if those granted to determine their utilization. I'd throw open the doors with the admonition that new gTLDs aren't guaranteed to succeed.
        _______________________________________________
        At-Large mailing list
        At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
        https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

        At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

  -- 
  Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  At-Large mailing list
  At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
  https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

  At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20180717/5434101b/attachment.html>