[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 22:15:22 UTC 2016

See, I knew I had forgotten something important!

I would not list the issue as PICs, but rather 
ensuring consumer protection for TLD strings 
normally associated with highly regulated activities.


At 14/06/2016 05:47 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
>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
>On 15 Jun 2016, at 1:57 am, Tijani BEN JEMAA 
><<mailto:tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn>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 
>>><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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.
>>>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,
>>>>on behalf of the ICANN Board
>>>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>>Content-Disposition: inline
>>>>ALAC mailing list
>>>><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>At-Large Online: 
>>>>ALAC Working Wiki: 
>>>ALAC mailing list
>>><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>>ALAC Working Wiki: 
>>ALAC mailing list
>><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>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/20160614/7b3cf01c/attachment.html>

More information about the ALAC mailing list