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

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Jun 14 01:58:47 UTC 2016

I thought I had made it clear that I was kicking 
off the discussion with my personal views. If 
indeed there is a desire within the ALAC 
(presumably in response to the wider community), 
then the ALAC could well issue such advice. And 
indeed, if there is a strong beleif that we 
should issue such advice, we would be derelict in not doing so.

At the moment, I am hearing that ICANN should not 
set a date for a further round, and indeed not 
even presume there will be such a round, or other 
mechanism to allocate gTLDs, but rather wait for 
the current processes to progress.

If I am misreading the messages, I am sure people will point it out.


At 13/06/2016 06:09 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

>On 13 June 2016 at 22:44, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>There are those in At-Large who would ask 
>whether re really need any more TLDs. But I see 
>that as (perhaps sadly) inevitable...
>If there is a consensus within At-Large that no 
>new rounds are are justified, it is reasonable 
>for ALAC advice to the Board to say:
>"ALAC cannot endorse or condone any future gTLD 
>delegations until ICANN Board and staff have 
>made a sufficiently demonstrated (to OUR satisfaction) that
>a) Demand for new gTLDs exists beyond ICANN's 
>contracted parties (and their ​service 
>providers), addressing a verified (ie, by a third party) market demand
>b) Expansion in the gTLD namespace serves an 
>identifiable public interest, enhancing stability and trust in the DNS
>c) Full documentation of "lessons learned from 
>the last round" is created and -- if a new round 
>is demonstrated through (a) and (b) above -- 
>provides substantial input to revised rules going forward"
>The steamroller may indeed be inevitable; heaven 
>knows our advice has been ignored before. But if 
>the internal (and non conflicted) consensus is 
>clear, ALAC is derelict if it does not clearly 
>articulate advice to the Board that such 
>activity is happening against (At-Large's perception of) the pubic interest.​
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20160613/80c86a9c/attachment.html>

More information about the ALAC mailing list