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

Kan Kaili kankaili at gmail.com
Mon Jun 13 21:28:54 UTC 2016

During the Board meeting, I imagine it is likely to end-up in a vote, especially if there are Board members advocating for another round.  Thus, I wonder if it would be better to have each stake-holder group SO/AC to send their own representative to present in front of the Board?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
To: "Rinalia Abdul Rahim" <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>; "ALAC Working List" <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:44 AM
Subject: Re: [ALAC] Request for a snapshot view on next round new gTLD program outlook from the ALAC for the ICANN Board

>I agree with Olivier, but I will nevertheless play the game (but am 
> ignoring the "one slide" constraint to start.
> Here are my personal views. Please voice your agreement or some other 
> position. These are "ALAC" views that Rinalia is being asked to 
> present, but others on this list are free to state how they think, to 
> help inform the ALAC Members.
> Alan
> At 13/06/2016 11:12 AM, 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?
> No. During the last round, the details of the Application Guidebook 
> (ie the implementation) took far longer than predicted, and then nce 
> the round was opened, even more issues were discovered. To set a date 
> right now, at the start of the GNSO PDP on future processes, and 
> prior to the completion of the CCT review seems to be an exercise in 
> predicting the future, without even the benefit of a semi-reliable 
> crystal ball.
> Note that it is not a foregone conclusion (in the PDP) that there 
> should be a next "round" as opposed to some other release of TLDs. 
> Personally I think rounds are reasonable, but it is not that we need 
> to have a single "round" for all classes of TLDs. Those serving 
> disadvantaged areas (if applicable!), IDNs, .brand TLDs could all be 
> released in different processes.
> If that illusion to occult practices is not sufficiently clear, there 
> is no way to predict a date.
> Setting a date as a "target" is fine. But I believe that once a date 
> is mentioned, it will become "the date" with incumbent slippages and 
> very strong pressure to meet "the date", even if we are not ready.
>>2. Requirements for round initiation - what do you think should be 
>>in place before the next round is initiated?
> A completed policy with FAR more detail that the last time, and a 
> process for addressing the inevitable issue that arise once the list 
> of applied-for strings is known. The policy must address the issues 
> that arose the last time.
>>3. Improvements - what elements of the new gTLD program should be 
>>improved for next round?
> - Community evaluations that are not Draconian and nearly impossible to meet.
> - If we decide that we need some level of applicant support for 
> disadvantaged economies, those rules to should not be nearly 
> impossible to meet.
> - Confusingly similar must be far more open to what is confusing to 
> real Internet users and not just linguists and trade-mark lawyers. 
> This will also remove some of the tendency for new TLDs to require 
> businesses to multiply register their names "just in case" some user 
> finds them repetitive. We cannot stop the overlap between a business 
> have a generic (such as com, net or org) PLUS relevant ccTLDs PLUS 
> other Geographic TLDs. We should not unnecessarily increase the set 
> of TLDs any given business can use.
> - Formal rules on private use of generic words
> - I'm sure there are more that have slipped my mind at the moment.
>>4. Other aspects that are of concern to the ALAC?
> There are those in At-Large who would ask whether re really need any 
> more TLDs. But I see that as (perhaps sadly) inevitable...
>>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,
>>on behalf of the ICANN Board
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>Content-Disposition: inline
>>ALAC mailing list
>>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>ALAC Working Wiki: 
> _______________________________________________
> 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)

More information about the ALAC mailing list