[ALAC] Request for a snapshot view on next round new gTLD program outlook from the ALAC for the ICANN Board
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:
>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.
>On Tuesday, 14 June 2016, Olivier MJ
>Crepin-Leblond <<mailto:ocl at gih.com>ocl at gih.com> wrote:
>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.
>On 13/06/2016 17:12, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
>>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.
>>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 CrÃ©pin-Leblond, PhD
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>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...
More information about the ALAC