On 8 July 2012 08:08, Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


> It's easy to assert that the demand just wasn't there, but in the absence
>> of any effective outreach that might have affected thinking it'd hard to
>> know, so then it becomes a matter of adding layers of personal
>> interpretation about they don't  need gTLDs, they have other things to do
>> with their money, etc etc.  I can't see how that takes us very far.
>>
>

> +1
>

I continue to be amazed at the speed at which seemingly obvious
explanations are so casually dismissed within the ICANN bubble. To deny
such answers merely because of their perceived simplicity may offer comfort
to those who need to add "layers of personal interpretation" in order to
fit a pre-conceived conclusion, but the onus is on
them<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor>to disprove the
simple explanation. Furthermore, there is an intellectual
requirement to separate logical analysis from wishful thinking; the
inclination to distort the distinction between the two even has its
own meme<http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-woulda-coulda-shoulda-mean.htm>
.

I have yet to see significant evidence in the developing world of "if we'd
only known about the gTLD program we would have applied". As a
counterpoint, anyone who was even casually
watching<http://www.ethiopianreview.com/articles/34306>
the <http://www.techcentral.co.za/get-set-for-the-africa-gold-rush/29833/>
IT <http://www.domainnews.co.za/2012/03/darkest-africa/>
media<http://www.prlog.org/11329153-kass-international-media-broadcasts-yes2dotafrica-campaign-pregnant-with-africa-said-sophia.html>in
Africa <http://www.biztechafrica.com/article/aftld-takes-africa/527/> could
not avoid the protracted political sparring between DCA and Uniforum on who
had more entitlement to ".africa" -- and those with an appropriately
entrepreneurial bent would have wondered why a TLD was so valuable to those
two groups. ICANN can't buy that kind of outreach (though I fully agree
that it didn't even try). But lack of ICANN outreach does not mean that
those who could have applied (but didn't) were unaware.

Eliminating wishful thinking (for instance, expecting that developing-world
entrepreneurs would react to the same stimuli -- in the same way -- as
developed-world ones) from the discussion would indeed "take us very far"
in really analysing whether the current path of iCANN wrt gTLDs is in the
global public good. There are numerous core assumptions behind ICANN policy
that, I submit, are simply out-of-whack with the Real World -- and nowhere
is evidence of this disjoint more apparent than in developing economies.

Dismissal of such premises -- without disproving them -- does not make the
discussion go away. It just forces such debate outside the bubble, to other
forums in which you're not a participant. And some of those emerging forums
are a direct threat to ICANN and the multi-stakeholder model.

- Evan




> Leaving aside the kind of applicants we as civil society types might have
>> liked, there are a lot of big and even multinational companies now across
>> the developing world for whom even the full $185k and operating costs could
>> have been manageable and the business case for doing it would have been
>> comparable to what the Northern firms saw.  Absent any real dialogue with
>> such potential applicants or assessment of what ICANN did and didn't do, we
>> won't really know what we're talking about.  So rather than projecting our
>> respective viewpoints about the process generally onto this as purported
>> explanations, why not get an assessment done so we have a little more
>> datato go on.  We asked for one in our board meeting (but not in writing),
>> and I believe GAC and ALAC did too.  Would be nice to hear something
>> concrete from st
>>
> aff about next steps.
>>
>> yes for written request, ICANN board rarely answer directly our questions
> during the meetings, let's push for accountability :9
>
> Rafik
>



-- 
Evan Leibovitch
Toronto Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56