[ALAC] Discussion: WT5 of PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures

[Evan Leibovitch]

Personally, I see this all as just laying down and letting the process run
over us. Yet once more At-Large is driven to be reactive to industry whims
rather than proactive of the interests of the Internet-using community who
we exist to serve (1).

Here we are, getting into the details of what subsequent rounds will be
like, while there are significant pockets of opinion that that no expansion
AT ALL proceed until sufficient study has been done of the benefits/harms
of previous rounds.

​Indeed, the feedback received from such research might have direct impact
on issues such as geographic names, so IMO this WG is FAR FAR premature.
The industry compact of domain sellers and speculative buyers -- the
overwhelming beneficiaries of the expansion(2) -- is driving this to happen
through the GNSO, and ALAC is one of the few voices that even has the
ICANN-given mandate to slow it down and have it done right (if at all).

That something as significant as the subsequent-round process is GNSO
driven and not a full CCWG is cause for concern. Obviously too few lessons
have been learned from the debacles of the past.

So At-Large is back in reaction mode just like we were the first time.
Likewise, that the GAC is "invited to participate" in the discussion of geo
names, rather than itself be the driver, is an indictment of ICANN's
process. The result of this mess is a continuation (and perhaps escalation)
of the kind of problems that exist with Amazon and the Red Cross, a
continued erosion of trust in ICANN's stewardship of domains, and a further
undermining of multistakeholderism in general.

I would consider unacceptable any participation in such a WG without
explicit disclaimer that its work -- as that of the other WGs involved in
this PDP -- cannot be considered finished until a substantial review of the
previous round has taken place and that the results of any such review be
integrated in the WGs' outcomes.

(1) It is most tempting here to use the term "public interest", but I
prefer not to re-enter that hurricane
(2) To be honest, ICANN itself is a beneficiary of the expansion, as it is
now financially dependent on maximizing domain sales

- Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170827/fafafcdc/attachment.html>