[ALAC] Request for a snapshot view on next round new gTLD program outlook from the ALAC for the ICANN Board

Rinalia Abdul Rahim rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
Mon Jun 13 19:37:37 UTC 2016


Hi, Kaili.

It would be hard to fit all your input text into one slide together with
other input.  Can you condense your input into 2-3 key
messages/questions? This would be very helpful.

谢谢!

Rinalia


On Tuesday, 14 June 2016, Kan Kaili <kankaili at gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kankaili at gmail.com');>> wrote:

> Hi, Rinalia,
>
> Thank you for this reply.  Now I understand.  In short, the Board has to
> do what the Board has to do.
>
> Meanwhile, I hereby request the opinions expressed in my email just sent
> to you and others as my input to ALAC's response to your questions.
>
> Thank you again.
>
> Best regards,
> Kaili
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Rinalia Abdul Rahim
> *To:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
> *Cc:* ALAC Working List
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 14, 2016 2:53 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [ALAC] Request for a snapshot view on next round new gTLD
> program outlook from the ALAC for the ICANN Board
>
> Dear Olivier,
>
> The Board is aware of all the reviews that are currently being done.
> Certainly no decision will be made about the next round without the input
> from these reviews.
>
> There are strong views being made to the Board about the need to start the
> next round. I think you can make an educated guess on where it is coming
> from. Rather than listen to one group, the Board would like to have a
> "sense" of the matter from all groups.  A snapshot of the sense of the
> community in time if you will while we wait for the results of the reviews.
>
> If you choose not to provide input to the Board at this time on the
> matter, that is entirely up to you.  In my personal view, you would give up
> an opportunity to share what you think, which would be a pity because it
> gives more room for other views to stand alone without counter balance.
>
> The formulation of the guiding questions is mine, based on what I think
> the key contention points would be.  In a sense, it is what I think
> are aspects of what would be valuable for the Board to hear from the ALAC
> plus other aspects that you think are important.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rinalia
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, 14 June 2016, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Rinalia,
>>
>> I must admit that I am very surprised with the language used in your
>> request and the questions that are asked. There are currently several
>> processes which need to complete before a "next round" is even thought of.
>> The CCT-RT and the "New gTLD Subsequent Round PDP" are very careful indeed
>> in not presuming that a next round is going to happen, yet the language
>> which you use in your email appears to point toward the fact that the Board
>> is already intent on starting a "next round". Worse still it asks the
>> unbelievable question of whether we should set a target date to work
>> towards to initiate a next round? That would indeed be the best way to
>> repeat all of the mistakes that were done in the current round and to
>> irritate more governments and end users. The issue of a "next round" is so
>> unwelcome at present that if the term "next round" is used in the CCT-RT,
>> they need to put a dollar in a virtual swear box as a penalty.
>>
>> Judging from your email, I am in fear that the Board, in its current
>> wisdom, is far removed from understanding the current greed and lack of
>> public interest found from the current round of new gTLDs. I am
>> flabbergasted.
>>
>> Kindest regards,
>>
>> Olivier
>>
>>
>> On 13/06/2016 17:12, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
>>
>> Dear ALAC,
>>
>> In Helsinki, the Board will meet to discuss the outlook for the next
>> round of the new gTLD Program.  To support our discussions, we would like
>> to be informed by stakeholder views.
>> I have been requested to obtain the view of the ALAC.  Would it be
>> possible for the ALAC to provide a snapshot of its views on this topic in
>> one slide?  Please note that this information and presentation format would
>> be applied to each stakeholder group's views.
>>
>> Some questions to guide you:
>> 1. Initiation of next round - do you think a date should be identified so
>> that ICANN has a target to work towards?
>> 2. Requirements for round initiation - what do you think should be in
>> place before the next round is initiated?
>> 3. Improvements - what elements of the new gTLD program should be
>> improved for next round?
>> 4. Other aspects that are of concern to the ALAC?
>>
>> For the Board to have a chance to review the slide before its discussion,
>> it would be good to receive the slide by 23 June 2016 latest.
>>
>> I do understand that this is short notice.  If you do not have sufficient
>> time to develop a formal position, informal input would be sufficient at
>> this time and it would be appreciated.
>> The Board is likely to revisit the topic again during its workshop in
>> September.  There is thus another chance to provide a more extensive view,
>> but for now the Board would just like to have a sense from the community on
>> the topic to guide its early deliberations.
>>
>> Thank you in advance and apologies for the short notice.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Rinalia
>>
>> on behalf of the ICANN Board
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing listALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>
>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>>
>>
>> --
>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>>
>> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20160614/a76ae4d4/attachment.html>


More information about the ALAC mailing list