[At-Large] Say Whut!

Tue Dec 11 12:31:01 UTC 2018

Interesting questions, sah.

Some of them are in fact accounted in the CCT RT Report, even if not
stridently addressed. We spent a lot of time on the concept we called
'parking'. And we examined the contours of the DNS market pre and post
current round. We noted the change in registrations in legacy domains by
what has occurred in nGTLDs.

I keep an eye on the 'throwbacks',  that is, strings applied for and won
that, for one or other reasons, are withdrawn or never delegated.  Most in
these categories are from the so-called 'brand' TLDs. Some say it doesn't
matter much, seeing the expectation always was that these would have
contributed relatively few new registrations to the overall DNS.  Thusly,
their contribution to domain space revenue expansion originally was, at
best, mischaracterised; The few cents or so that go to ICANN's coffers are
insignificant for loss calculation.

I tend to think of a more supra-operational impact. Every string given up
suggests that it is seeping into the consciousness that maybe more strings
available do not necessarily inure to increased market health, competition
or generally, [DNS] use.

-Carlton

==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 11:53 AM Christian de Larrinaga <cdel at firsthand.net>
wrote:

> Evan,
>
> Is the challenge one of structure and representation institutionally or
> has the changes to empower an industry dependent on intermediation at
> ICANN and Internet as a whole over the last few years squeezed out the
> user stake in the DNS?
>
> Perhaps the place to start is to ask if the growth of Internet users
> since 1995 to today (16 million to c.4.1billion) is also reflected in
> those users having a domain name. I don't get that impression. But it is
> hard to get reliable data from ICANN or anywhere.
>
> As to the health of the current domain registration market as a system
> one could start by asking what is the proportion of registered domain
> names that are actually being used and required for personal or
> business, rather than for defensive reputational and brand purposes?
>
> What would happen to the registries and registrars industry model
> fostered by ICANN if users abandoned their defensive DNS registrations
> as (local) regulators take up the slack?
>
>
> Christian
>
> Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> > Hi Christian,
> >
> > Given my experiences and observations... While I have totally stayed
> > away from the last At-Large review, I did one myself as a personal
> > mental exercise.
> >
> > The conclusion I came to is that the current structure underneath ALAC
> > is overly politicized, appeals to superficial airs of importance, and
> > is at its core designed to be utterly impotent in regard to serving
> > its bylaw mandate.
> >
> > Were I to be engaged in a real exercise to enable ALAC to serve its
> > bylaw mandate, I would wish to eliminate ALSs and move to fully
> > individual membership in RALOs. I would reduce travel and invest more
> > in vitual meeting technologies. I would also concentrate ALAC activity
> > in ONLY three areas:
> >
> > - Creation and distribution of plain language public education on the
> > DNS and how it affects public use of the internet (written
> > independently of ICANN itself)
> >
> > - surveys and R&D into public needs and opinions about domain names
> > and the DNS
> >
> > - analysis of the result of such research, and development of ICANN
> > input based on that (both in original policy initiatives and response
> > to existing activity)
> >
> > Any takers? I'm happy to engage if any interest exists. My rationale
> > behind this is quite deep and I'm happy to expand if interest exists.
> > ___________________
> > Evan Leibovitch, Toronto
> > @evanleibovitch/@el56
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 11:45 AM Christian de Larrinaga
> > <cdel at firsthand.net <mailto:cdel at firsthand.net> wrote:
> >
> >     Given the clarity of these two comments. Maybe it is time to
> >     consider a
> >     straw poll over what future role and activity At Large
> >     participants feel
> >     is viable? Given the experience of the continuous perilous
> undermining
> >     of the Internet edge by every digital miner with a pickaxe, shovel or
> >     stick of dynamite?
> >
> >     Christian
> >
> >
> >
> >     Carlton Samuels wrote:
> >     > Yessir, I can recall your exact words to me so long ago; waste of
> >     > time, decision already made. The reasoning you offered was bold,
> >     too.
> >     >
> >     > I was interested at one point. Then when it was too clearly a
> bridge
> >     > too far, I retired to the shadows.
> >     >
> >     > A congressman from Texas once told a writer I truly loved that in
> >     > politics you have no right to call yourself a politician if you
> cant
> >     > drink their whiskey, take their women and money and still vote
> >     against
> >     > them. Theres a lesson there somewhere.
> >     >
> >     > The arguments you hear on this or that are stimulating for a policy
> >     > wonk. But quite frankly at this point much of what the At-Large
> does
> >     > is margin-gathering.
> >     >
> >     > Someone has to. And we live in hope.
> >     >
> >     > -Carlton
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > On Mon, 10 Dec 2018, 1:07 am Evan Leibovitch
> >     <evanleibovitch at gmail.com <mailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com>
> >     > <mailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com
> >     <mailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >     So... Do all of you who sank your valuable time into that
> >     >     where-do-the-auction-funds-go sham of a process feel a little
> >     >     betrayed now?
> >     >
> >     >     How many more times will we continue to play this futile game?
> >     >
> >     >     The fix is always in. Let the "community" thrash about with
> >     >     well-meaning but big-picture-pointless debate, then swoop in at
> >     >     the end to remind where the ultimate decision lies. It lies
> with
> >     >     the money.
> >     >
> >     >     "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
> >     >
> >     >     I got fooled enough with the Applicant Support process, the CCT
> >     >     and a few others. Yeah, it's more than one but at least I
> >     can say
> >     >     I know the experience intimately. But the aftermath of these
> >     >     efforts (or lack thereof) is why you don't see me wasting my
> >     time
> >     >     on subsequent ones. (Cue the theme music from "CSI:Miami".)
> >     >
> >     >     Countless of my colleagues continue the good-faith attempt to
> >     >     disprove Einstein's definition of insanity(*), unsuccessfully.
> I
> >     >     love my ALAC friends (I've literally invited you to my home)
> and
> >     >     it pains me to watch the story repeat so often.
> >     >
> >     >     But sooner or later the collective massochism and denial has to
> >     >     end. Turnover in ALAC is low enough to have plenty of veterans
> >     >     around who should know better.
> >     >
> >     >     Stop playing the game. Challenge the rules instead. Perfect
> >     >     example: why is ALAC involved in the minutiae of "subsequent
> >     >     procedures" for new rounds of gTLDs without having even
> >     challenged
> >     >     the rationale for new rounds at all? Also, I've previously
> >     spoken
> >     >     at length about ALAC's sad longtime choice to respond to the
> >     >     agendas of others rather than even try to set its own.
> >     >
> >     >     Monied interests overpower us politically by orders of
> >     magnitude,
> >     >     and without a regulatory role ICANN has no incentive to push
> >     >     against the money. This needs to be changed, or others will
> >     change
> >     >     it from the outside.
> >     >
> >     >     I remind that we are now living through a period of time in
> >     which
> >     >     awful political choices are being made, all over the world, in
> >     >     desperate moves to disrupt deaf and corrupt status quo.
> >     ICANN and
> >     >     ALAC ignore this trend at their danger.
> >     >
> >     >     ___________________
> >     >     Evan Leibovitch, Toronto
> >     >     @evanleibovitch/@el56
> >     >
> >     >     (*) that may not have ever actually been said by Einstein, but
> >     >     it's a useful phrase regardless of source.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     On Dec 9, 2018 12:34 AM, "Carlton Samuels"
> >     >     <carlton.samuels at gmail.com
> >     <mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
> >     <mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com
> >     <mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >         https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/12/07/dot_web_review/
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > _______________________________________________
> >     > At-Large mailing list
> >     > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >     <mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> >     > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >     >
> >     > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >
> >     --
> >     Christian de Larrinaga
> >     @ FirstHand
> >     -------------------------
> >     +44 7989 386778
> >     cdel at firsthand.net <mailto:cdel at firsthand.net>
> >
>
> --
> Christian de Larrinaga
> @ FirstHand
> -------------------------
> +44 7989 386778
> cdel at firsthand.net
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20181211/c3ea6ddd/attachment-0001.html>