[ALAC-LT] A thought on new gTLD "rounds"

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Sep 15 16:23:20 UTC 2016

A few comments below...

At 15/09/2016 03:58 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
>Good morning Alan,
>I’m afraid this will lead to the same result. 
>Even with categories, we failed to make the 
>balance. Don’t forget that, for example, the 
>community applications were evaluated by people 
>who don’t know what’s a community and the 
>result was that the only one supported 
>application failed to pass the community evaluation, and then dropped.

Correct, and that is why the rules need to be 
revised in this and in many other cases. I was 
not proposing that we do anything immediately.

>We proposed to make a dedicated round for 
>underserved regions and communities with a 
>support program, but our proposal wasn’t listened to.

That is not quire correct. We suggested that this 
be discussed, and it is on the list of things to 
discuss within the ongoing gTLD PDP. That being 
said, I am not convinced exactly what we need to 
do. We have made very strong comments that except 
in certain (relatively isolated) cases, the first 
round of gTLDs has generated a lot of domain 
speculation but it is unclear in many cases if 
there are any real benefits. That is one of the 
things that the CCT review is looking at. 
Encouraging less developed areas to speculatively 
invest in TLDs may not be doing them a big 
favour. It is something we need to carefully consider.

>If you propose an alternative small round for 
>dot brand and the like, I don’t see the 
>interest of the endusers in that proposal, and 
>I’m not convinced that it will serve the public interest.

The benefit to end users is that it could relieve 
the pressure to open up a general round quickly, 
and give us the time to understand the last round 
and get it right the next time for the more 
general type of TLD. If it is purely up to us, we 
will wait to do the job properly before any new 
TLDs are approved. But we are not the only voice.


>Executive Director
>Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
>Phone: +216 98 330 114
>           +216 52 385 114
>>Le 14 sept. 2016 Ã  03:23, Alan Greenberg 
>><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> a écrit :
>>As I think you all know, in Helsinki and at a 
>>Ry/Rr meeting in Amsterdam the Baord was 
>>subjected to considerable pressure to not wait 
>>until 2020 or later to release further gTLDs. 
>>They have responded by asking the GNSO (and in 
>>turn the gTLD PDP) whether anything can be done to "speed things up".
>>The ALAC has consistently said we need to slow 
>>down not speed up, finish all of the reviews, 
>>and get it "right" for the next time, whether 
>>it is rounds or some other release mechanism.
>>As I was reading some of the discussion over 
>>the Board's request, a few thoughts came to me.
>>- There is little compelling (to me) to the 
>>release of more generic-type of industry-targeted TLDs.
>>- IDNs have a more compelling case, although I 
>>suspect that most of them are not cultural but business-driven.
>>- Geographic TLDs may end up being varyingly 
>>successful, but there seems to be a real demand.
>>- The argument for releasing .brand TLD is 
>>compelling - those without may be at a competitive disadvantage.
>>- Many of us campaigned for "categories" in the 
>>last round. We did not succeed, but we ended up 
>>with a few anyway (.brand being the most 
>>blatant, and community TLDs conspicuous in 
>>their absence. It seems pretty certain that the 
>>next round will have categories, but we are 
>>probably a long way from formally deciding that.
>>It dawns on me that IF we can decide 
>>definitively that we will have categories and 
>>what the prime ones are (certainly .brand will 
>>be among them), it might be possible to have a 
>>new limited round just for them. As far as I 
>>can recall, few of the problems that we 
>>encountered in the first round were associated 
>>with .brands and "fixing" the rules for this 
>>limited subset might be something that can be done quickly.
>>The same may well be true for geographic TLDs.
>>Where are the holes in this line of reasoning?
>>ALAC-ExCom mailing list
>><mailto:ALAC-ExCom at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC-ExCom at atlarge-lists.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac-excom/attachments/20160915/329c4e5a/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ALAC-ExCom mailing list