[lac-discuss-en] [CPWG] REMINDER / Meeting invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 08 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC

Thu Jul 9 21:49:48 UTC 2020

I share some of Evan’s consideration, although in a less radical way.
Back then, my position was that a new round could be useful, but only to allow IDN TLDs to be delegated. My reasoning was that that the only factor that was hindering the presence on the Internet was the technical limitations to allow different scripts.
Time has proven that I was partly right, but partly wrong. The new IDN TLDs have failed miserably, although the technical limitations have been removed, simply because the problem was not a technical one. In the meantime, some Geo-TLDs have been successful - and I have already admitted to Dirk and Alexander that I was wrong in my assessment that they were useless.
This said, I am still hesitant in investing time in discussing detailed reserved lists or special conditions - but that might be more related to TLD fatigue rather than being an objective assessment of the cost-benefits of actions that require high resource investment. I remain convinced that the biggest problems that Internet users at large have with the internet are not related to new TLDs, and that dedicating the bulk of our resources to this topic is not a wise investment - but I fully understand that other folks might think differently, and therefore have priorities that differ from mine.
The fact that we are a very diversified crowd is, as a matter of fact, one of the strengths of At-Large, since we have people with different interests and different priorities we can cover a diversified spectrum of topics.
Cheers,
Roberto

On 09.07.2020, at 18:37, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org<mailto:evan at telly.org>> wrote:

Hi Christopher,

As Tijani said, I think everyone had their eye on what happened with .amazon when  crafting this approach. However, I agree with your PoV and in fact believe that the utterly bogus "community" case for the .amazon TLD actually bolsters your case.

Having said that, I've personally developed a severe case of "TLD ennui". WHO CARES how it all rolls out (from a public interest PoV) until it comes time to hunt down abuse.

Past experience has shown that TLDs are an utterly miserable and inefficient way to bring a community together, especially in light of all the great alternatives that exist. One could easily make the case that Reddit alone can serve community-building and public accountability better than any registry. Since from the start TLDs are pay-to-play affairs they must -- even the community ones -- contribute to inequity of access to an extent not shared by other platforms. At-Large's experience with new TLDs, even supposedly-noble ones, indicate that they are without exception driven by some combination of vanity and greed.

I'm very disappointed that neither ALAC nor anyone else in the ICANN bubble -- not the GAC nor the civil society rump of the GNSO -- tried to make even a feeble public-interest case against a new round.  Back when I was more-deeply involved in ALAC I tried to muster support for the case against any more TLD delegations until the consequences of the last round could be properly (and independently) analyzed. The effort failed miserably, and led to my pulling away. Everyone treats a new round as a simply inevitable, whether or not anyone outside the domain cartel really wants it. Whenever I hear the term "subpro" I have to smile to myself because I read that as an abbreviation for "less-than-professional", which indeed I believe to be the case for that group when it comes to consideration of public interest.

The inevitable march to new rounds, whether they are needed or not, offers a stark reminder of the utter isolation of ICANN's bubble (including ALAC) from the outside world. The intervention of the California AG on .ORG should have been a wake up call to this isolation, but it appears to have blown over. So it's back to business as usual ... until the next time the AG steps in. Jonathan was right that the AG intervention in .ORG was a dangerous precedent, but ... dangerous to who?

We now know that there are limits to the world's tolerance of ICANN's perversion of multi-stakeholderism. How soon until the next time these limits are tested?

Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
@evanleibovitch / @el56

On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 04:47, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>> wrote:

Hi Alan,

So, that's it: you want us to ask the addition of the geo-name nature of the string applied for as a criterion for the CPE to decide whether the application is Community one or not.

In my opinion, it's absolutely irrelevent. Any geo-name could be applied for by a commercial entity, a government or a community. The fact that it is a geo-name shouldn't give more credit to the applicat even if it is a community. Any application is not more community one when it is for the geo-name string.

Tijani

Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>> a écrit :

Many geoname TLDs delegated in the last round were in fact community applications (although I don't know if any went through the CPE since that only happens if they are contested.

The question here is that IF you are applying for a geoname, and IF you are applying as a community TLD, then should you get extra points under the CPE because it is a geoname (that is, it improves your chances of satisfying the CPE and thus winning over some other applicant.

I am not sure we have a strong case for getting this approved, nor am I sure it is even worth the effort to try, but I see it as a good thing if we could.

Alan

At 2020-07-08 11:50 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:

Dear Jonathan and all,

Following up on our discussion today during the CPWG call about the geo-names, I would like to explain why I donâ€™t think that geo-names should be incorporated into the CPWG evaluation.
In fact, the CPE role is to evaluate whether the application is a community application or not (this is what Alan explained and what I agreed on). So how it might be incorporated? as a criterion to decide if the application is a community application? Shall we request that if the application is for a geo-name string, the CPE should consider it as a community application?
The CPE evaluates if the applicant represents a community and if the application serves that community whatever the string applied for is (geo-name, language name, culture name, etc.).

Tijani

Le 8 juil. 2020 Ã  07:34, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff at atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org> > a Ã©crit :

***If you require a dial out or need to state an apology, please contact At-Large staff at staff at atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number***

Dear All,

The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 08 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC for 90 mins.

For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y9ghlcz3

The agenda and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/XYRIC

Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/97147867051?pwd=NWswK1duaUtHclBxaksyRC8wekxCQT09 / Passcode: 2345cpwg**

Real time transcription (RTT) available at (subject to availability): https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN [streamtext.net] [streamtext.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.streamtext.net_player-3Fevent-3DICANN-2520-255bstreamtext.net-255d&d=DwMFAw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=3swqZGyi6FKCwbtdXsS00KG30nSf_mvmyNeQfXOhtnE&s=Lv8slVV_rkW85WWduFmCXZqG6gKKvj2Dqn_0ObROKVs&e=>

ADIGO Conference Bridge:
EN: 1638
ES: 1738
FR: 1838

Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865

Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann [adigo.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.adigo.com_icann&d=DwMFAw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=v_dW7H6jSlA9nOi38W8-O0NNugHRJaIXFir99n2INTw&s=2UDiAMNbva1Qtvc7Gxe4uYEmKjLJ0Ue93B3VR6GVJPw&e=>

At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB

If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff at atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org>

Thank you.
Kind regards,

At-Large Staff

ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community
Website: atlarge.icann.org [atlarge.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge.icann.org_&d=DwMFbw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=aD5IHW82ib60gM4_5F5DNkT_NsLdtJUGtBDmTkRfPFo&s=93X6eo5QBNEA4dghH6ByIbJdqCYsQp0fnY8sc7Vwwe0&e=>
Facebook: facebook.com/icann [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icannatlarge&d=DwMFbw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=aD5IHW82ib60gM4_5F5DNkT_NsLdtJUGtBDmTkRfPFo&s=VNZ6ZSmeW2apxVI2RcrRby4-v06-vT5xD0df7SPovEg&e=> atlarge [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icannatlarge&d=DwMFbw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=aD5IHW82ib60gM4_5F5DNkT_NsLdtJUGtBDmTkRfPFo&s=VNZ6ZSmeW2apxVI2RcrRby4-v06-vT5xD0df7SPovEg&e=>
Twitter: @ [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANNAtLarge&d=DwMFbw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=aD5IHW82ib60gM4_5F5DNkT_NsLdtJUGtBDmTkRfPFo&s=6aeZ9cfKyzr-18xGZ1aYRiQLFtYoAkS5DnnZTolk3Jg&e=> ICANNAtLarge [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANNAtLarge&d=DwMFbw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=aD5IHW82ib60gM4_5F5DNkT_NsLdtJUGtBDmTkRfPFo&s=6aeZ9cfKyzr-18xGZ1aYRiQLFtYoAkS5DnnZTolk3Jg&e=>

<At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call[28].ics>_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________
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.

Tijani BEN JEMAA

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________
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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BENJEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Telephone: +216 52 385 114
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/attachments/20200709/0b0a72c8/attachment-0001.html>