[ALAC-LT] A thought on new gTLD "rounds"
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Fri Sep 16 07:25:41 UTC 2016
thanks for asking the question here. Let me share my thoughts ahead of
today's conference call:
On 14/09/2016 04:23, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> 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.
Yes. I'd say there is political demand, not commercial demand.
> - Geographic TLDs may end up being varyingly successful, but there
> seems to be a real demand.
Yes, but below the originally advertised line that there would be a rush
> - 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.
Brands: probably. GeoTLDs, probably not - because we are still grappling
with that's a GeoTLD and what is not.
Community TLDs: definitely not, as we are in total quagmire when it
comes identifying what a community is.
The real concern that I have is that the moment we start putting a
target date to one type of TLD next round, we'll see pressure to get
another one brought forward and so on. We'll end up again in a slippery
slope where the Board will have to agree to bring target dates,
Let me remind you of the Camel's nose:
I've seen that happen once at ICANN. Why should we allow this to happen
again and fail 3Bn Internet users out there? ICANN's responsibility is
to end users and our line should not deviate from that.
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
More information about the ALAC-ExCom