[lac-discuss-es] [lac-discuss-en] ICANN 77 Policy Session: An end user perspective: The next gTLD application window

Mon Jun 12 21:36:01 UTC 2023

[[-- Translated text (en -> es) --]]

Gracias mi amigo. Me alegro de que lo hayas conseguido... bueno, ¡casi así!

 Nos sentimos honrados por su bien conocida, um, bueno... humildad.

 CAS

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

 *Móvil: 876-818-1799Estrategia, proceso, gobernanza, evaluación y respuesta*
 =============================

 El dom 11 jun 2023 a las 19:39, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch<apisan en unam.mx>
 escribió: 

> Hi all,
>
>
> it seems that this message may be summarized as:
>
>
>
>    1. there is no proof that the latest round of new gTLDs, now getting
>    ten years old, did much good;
>    2. the only reason for final, at large users of the Internet to care
>    about new gTLDs is IDNs, which are only significant for totally non-latin
>    alphabets and character sets (further, we know that in the LAC region there
>    is no important interest nor support for IDNs outside at most three
>    indigenous languages);
>    3. we never understood what the new-gTLD risk so let's paper over it;
>    4. those who lobby for new gTLDs are not declaring their interests in
>    the industry;
>    5. but we must barge on with new gTLDs without further consultation.
>
>
> Mind you, I don't see it as my mission to translate these messages into
> plain English, but it seems that sometimes a non-native speaker must help
> because, if the original message is incomprehensible, the automatic
> translation makes it completely incommunicable to those not bred in the
> language of the Empire.  Hope this is useful particularly for Spanish,
> Portuguese, French, and Dutch speakers among us.
>
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *De:* lac-discuss-en <lac-discuss-en-bounces en atlarge-lists.icann.org> en
> nombre de Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels en gmail.com>
> *Enviado:* domingo, 11 de junio de 2023 04:09 p. m.
> *Para:* Claire C. Craig
> *CC:* LAC Discuss
> *Asunto:* Re: [lac-discuss-en] ICANN 77 Policy Session: An end user
> perspective: The next gTLD application window
>
> Dear Claire:
> Back in 2012 a polyglot group of us in At-Large spent a little time in
> reflective conversation looking at how we were representing the Internet
> end user perspective inside in a time when the dynamics of Internet end
> user growth was in the East and South. Access and cost of access plus use
> cases were priority concerns for these users. We struggled to fit these
> into the ICANN policy remit.
>
> Everyone of us felt that ICANN's technical coordination role of the
> Internet identifiers was going pretty well and truly enhancing the
> stability, reliability and security of the Internet. The high priority
> interest was to find ways to embrace these new entrants and make them feel
> welcome enough to find cause to commit to the ICANN agenda and join the
> community.
>
> We thought co-opting them more meaningfully into the governance mechanisms
> and finding more ways to engage them in their own language and giving them
> more opportunities to participate in the business of the domain system
> would be good ways to bind them to the ICANN agenda.
>
> We felt that a more holistic view of the Internet governance imperative
> could be built on a more inclusive and collaborative multi
> stakeholder model. Those perspectives were positioned as a 'over the
> horizon' view and outlined in a white paper "*Making ICANN Relevant,
> Responsive and Respected*"; labeled the "R3" paper. My survey of the 2023
> landscape suggests those challenges are still with us.
>
> As a participant on several review teams, GNSO WGs, a few CCWGs and pen
> holder for several ALAC policy advice to the Board on the high interest
> matters, my positions come with a long and well documented record of
> advocacy in the At-Large in general and on the ALAC in particular.  I will
> not abandon nor repudiate those positions.
>
> The principal premise of the gTLD round of 2012 was that it was a demand
> response and required to bring new competition to the domain name
> marketplace. Then as now, there is scant evidence of that demand. And
> were we to use the usual economic indicators that frame a competitive
> market, at least one or more of those deterministic indicators  - I like to
> look at price movement for domain names - are not supporting the stated
> objective.  The task now is to identify the drivers of greater relevance
> for this next gTLD round to the global community. Here is where the history
> of the last round suggests some recalibration may be necessary.
>
> We still believe that when internet end users see their language groups
> embedded in the domain name infrastructure, having more skin in the game
> inures to more respect for the MSM and increased relevance to them of the
> ICANN remit.  This is the gravamen of the At-Large support for IDNs, driven
> largely by keen engagement of our At-Large colleagues from the East. It is
> the At-Large's business to be gungho for IDNs in every way it avances that
> mission.
>
> The SubPro WG offered scores of recommendations that would mediate and
> address some of the ills of the last round as the evidence showed. They
> were expected to be in place before the next round. Some are adopted but
> there is still a bit of an argy bargy between contending stakeholders.
> Continued At-Large engagement must be felt here.
>
> Numbers matter. The At-Large and the ALAC championed Applicant Support
> because we believed more direct investment in the domain name business and
> system will insure improved engagement and responsiveness of ICANN to those
> making up the great majority of Internet end users.  Notwithstanding
> significant opposition, we managed to craft a common cause in collaborating
> with the NCUC. Here I publicly acknowledge the seminal role of my friend
> Evan Leibovitch in this effort. The evidence was maybe the intervention was
> too small, too unknown where it mattered most and a little late for the
> full impact of that policy. Furthermore, it is my view the criteria and
> process developed for assessment of neediness stifled enthusiasm of
> would-be beneficiaries.  Even as we ensure the fitness of this
> [anticipated] round's version of the Applicant Guidebook, the At-Large must
> advocate for a more applicant-friendly criteria and transparent eligibility
> process.
>
> The centrality of the definition of "community" to the community
> application process must not be underestimated. Similarly with community
> applications, it is in the At-Large's interest to show and be heard in all
> efforts to fully embrace those deemed community applications in the
> anticipated round.
>
> If you think about it at a philosophical level and consider how a value
> bestowed by ICANN on a string delegated to an entity results in satisfied
> end user interests, alchemy comes to mind.  I can see a case for a closed
> generic gTLD instantiating improved DNS security and downstream business
> benefits to end users even as I'm ambivalent on what closed generics could
> mean to the other stakeholders in the DNS business overall.
>
> I have been watching with some interest the "Facilitated Dialogue" between
> the parties - ALAC, GNSO, GAC - on the subject. Although the caveat is
> presented that the views are individual and not to be relegated to the
> originating stakeholder grouping, I would encourage the ALAC to take a
> benign view and not offer any resistance to closed generics, protocols
> observed. For even if it is only the prospect of an altruistic business
> model, closed generics should be allowed on principle. The use case horse
> for strings has already bolted. A denial could conceivably lead to a claim
> for equal protection.
>
> The premise of a more competitive market for domain names with a new round
> is fraught. But my view is that giving all of them room to breathe and
> letting them bloom - or not! - is the best posture for the At-Large.
>
> The case for domain name expansion as an existential threat to the
> stability and security of the internet or degrading to end user interests
> is not made.
>
> Carlton Samuels
>
> ==============================
> *Carlton A Samuels*
>
> *Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment &
> Turnaround*
> =============================
>
>
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 at 07:55, Claire C. Craig <claireccraig en gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear All
>> We have been asked to consult with the LACRALO Community to provide input
>> for the following: At ICANN77, the ALAC is hosting a community session
>> on the end user perspective ahead of the next gTLD application window on Monday,
>> 12 June, 13:45 - 15:00.  The session will be a round table discussion of
>> the five ICANN RALOs on the new gTLD program. Focusing on topics such as:
>>
>>    - Applicant Support
>>    - IDNs/UA
>>    - Community applications
>>    - Promoting the new round
>>    - Experiences from the previous round
>>    - RALOs expectations and needs of the next gTLDs rounds
>>
>> *The role of the RALOs during this session is to provide input from
>> Internet end users on the next gTLD round*. The session will help us
>> facilitate communications to prospective and possible applicants with
>> general focus on end users needs and interests.
>>
>> Claire C. Craig
>> LACRALO Secretarit
>> _______________________________________________
>> lac-discuss-en mailing list
>> lac-discuss-en en atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>
>