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

Tue Jun 14 21:47:24 UTC 2016

Hi Alan (and everyone)

I agree with the questions - so far,  But WHAT ABOUT PICS.  Please, they must be included specifically as one of the really big issues for ALAC - they have not been solved in this round and must be addressed before there are more gTLDs, however allocated 

Holly
On 15 Jun 2016, at 1:57 am, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn> wrote:

> Dear Alan,
> 
> I agree with your answers to the board questions. I think they are valid to be the At-Large ones. 
> I may have a small reservation regarding the answer of the 4th question: if we feel there is no need for more TLDs at the moment we shouldn’t say that it is inevitable
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tijani BEN JEMAA
> Executive Director
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
> Phone: +216 98 330 114
>             +216 52 385 114
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
>> Le 13 juin 2016 à 21:44, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> a écrit :
>> 
>> 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,
>>> 
>>> Rinalia
>>> 
>>> on behalf of the ICANN Board
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>> Content-Disposition: inline
>>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
>>> 1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:FFI6acGgaHgkljw6nSfaWPz+r0bVcVMCUIg6dand+B99rO4q6GuAwBGgO2N98Vn2ARdbNK7d8FNFypxe7wL0aYD3+auvIYZJtvzgVVQ1fKmfKg7xZ1K+zUznzX9ioup1zpHUi5Lg83QOkpNuq3IIQkvK/MPVhQ/ZlY0eImbYdFlkru0scp0xou/dO7hc9wj/
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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)
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160615/cbfff38c/attachment.html>