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

Tue Jun 14 02:20:41 UTC 2016

The first question posed by the Charter for The 
New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group is:

Cancelling Subsequent Procedures: Should there in 
fact be new gTLD subsequent procedures and if 
not, what are the justifications for and 
ramifications of discontinuing the program?

Alan

At 13/06/2016 01:15 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I tend to align with Olivier's reservations. I 
>think the first question should have been to ask 
>whether a new round is required.
>
>I believe the outcome of that should indeed 
>determine whether to proceed or not. A PC to the 
>community on this should be a step forward, so 
>board can receive formal view of SO/AC for her decision making.
>
>Regards
>
>Sent from my LG G4
>Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>On 13 Jun 2016 5:44 p.m., "Olivier MJ 
>Crepin-Leblond" <<mailto:ocl at gih.com>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 list
>>
>><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>
>>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>
>>
>>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>
>>ALAC Working Wiki: 
>><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
>
>--
>
>Olivier MJ CrÃ©pin-Leblond, PhD
>
><http://www.gih.com/ocl.html>http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>ALAC mailing list
><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: 
><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
> 
>1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:vD46I0pXWgCRdQTnsj4YM0e1cxVJsXtcU89MMDM1z/aJ+JhIaL5RbEC2efqmV3nQfsa3jD79nTc6wiSEqYbvmb4jlzCUEvFBD2dBlihBj2AsnDwSWnmj7w0LEhR5EZpEdaOLl0ZWWhKZlDzSxEt0kTQmFzGVDziD5nqvaF2rcAAG1jOral8aBUeuWVDyx/zB
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20160613/14410e2c/attachment.html>