[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 02:37:27 UTC 2016

It is unfortunate that Akram Atallah has gone on 
record as saying that “However, questions remain 
as to whether it will be a round or a permanent 
window.” despite the ongoing processes which do 
not presume there will be further processes.


At 13/06/2016 02:53 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:

>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,
>On Tuesday, 14 June 2016, 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,
>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,
>>on behalf of the ICANN Board
>>ALAC mailing list
>>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>ALAC Working Wiki: 
>Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>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: 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20160613/241167ce/attachment.html>

More information about the ALAC mailing list