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

Holly Raiche h.raiche at internode.on.net
Thu Sep 15 23:46:21 UTC 2016


Folks

This is why both Kaili and Carlton are on the CCT - to spend the time looking at what have been our priorities for some time - especially consumer trust.  The other issues that Alan has highlighted - indeed all of us - include looking at genuine community participation - and barriers - IDNs, etc, etc.  It is why we are trying to push back on another round until at least all the information is in - and assessment is possible as to who benefited, how many were newcomers, was geographic diversity improved, etc etc. And we absolutely need to put this on the agenda for Hyderabad

Holly
On 16 Sep 2016, at 2:23 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

> 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.
> 
> Alan
> 
>>  
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Tijani BEN JEMAA
>> Executive Director
>> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
>> Phone: +216 98 330 114
>>           +216 52 385 114
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
>>> Le 14 sept. 2016 à 03:23, Alan Greenberg <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?
>>> 
>>> Alan
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ALAC-ExCom mailing list
>>> ALAC-ExCom at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-excom
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC-ExCom mailing list
> ALAC-ExCom at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-excom

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac-excom/attachments/20160916/a178f52d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ALAC-ExCom mailing list