[[-- Translated text (en -> es) --]] Bueno, básicamente, resumí que dijiste que no hay motivo para que apoyemos la expansión a nuevos gTLD, pero que vas a impulsarlo. Y pedí divulgación de intereses y le pareció mejor tratar de parecer divertido y evadir la pregunta. Pongámonos serios ahora. LACRALO ha estado luchando con los IDN durante años y no encontró adeptos en la región, sobre todo porque las lenguas indígenas fueron transliteradas a caracteres latinos poco después de que llegaran el español, el inglés, el francés y el holandés. Los criollos y los pidgins se crearon más tarde sobre la base de idiomas fundamentalmente europeos que también se escribieron en caracteres latinos con un mínimo de diacríticos, y ya son compatibles con UNICODE, o nadie ha hecho ese trabajo debido a la falta de interesados y promotores. . ¿Alguien está actuando ante la Universidad de las Indias Occidentales para que sus lingüistas hagan este trabajo y comiencen a experimentar con los IDN para los idiomas locales no coloniales del Caribe y las Antillas? ¿Hay algún gobierno, organización académica, empresa privada (¡pronto tendremos ISP presidiendo LACRALO!) que se preocupe por esto? es posible que lo estén haciendo y los esfuerzos no se hayan comunicado a la comunidad de LACRALO, que estoy seguro aprovecharía la oportunidad de hacer un trabajo decolonial más allá de la palabrería. Con UA no está claro si estamos haciendo una apuesta propia o ajena, en un continente en el que no se desarrollan ni navegadores ni clientes de correo. Entonces, ¿cuál es el interés de la región? Con las rondas anteriores de gTLD, obtuvimos un par de nuevos gTLD asignados con éxito a actores en la región (punto-resto y punto-barra), negocios por cierto, esfuerzos con fines de lucro que se están acumulando para un éxito leve, pero no explosivo. ¿Se tienen en cuenta en la evaluación de la necesidad de seguir adelante? Todos estos puntos se pueden evaluar de forma objetiva, con datos. La carga de la prueba recae sobre los hombros de quienes impulsan esta agenda. Los datos, los datos hablarán, no la retórica sobrecargada que desafía no solo a las herramientas de traducción automática, sino incluso a muchos de los hablantes nativos de inglés. Entonces, ¿alguna afirmación (preferiblemente clara, ya sabes, sujeto-verbo-complemento-claro) en ese sentido? Estas son preguntas bastante claras y, como se dijo, se pueden responder con datos. Alejandro Pisanty ________________________________ De: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Enviado: lunes, 12 de junio de 2023 03:34 p. m. Para: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch CC: Claire C. Craig; LAC Discuss Asunto: Re: [lac-discuss-en] ICANN 77 Policy Session: An end user perspective: The next gTLD application window Thank you my friend. I am pleased that you got it.....well, nearly so! We are humbled by your well-known, um, well...humility. CAS ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Sun, 11 Jun 2023 at 19:39, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan@unam.mx<mailto:apisan@unam.mx>> wrote: 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@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> en nombre de Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@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@gmail.com<mailto:claireccraig@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-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.