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

[Alan Greenberg]

Evan, regardless of whether it is "right" or 
"wrong", it looks like this group will exist so 
the question is whether we want to be present or 
not. It is not yet clear how other groups and 
particularly the GAC will react, but we need to make a decision for ourselves.

If it is the wish of the ALAC that we sit this 
one out, that would not have MY support, but 
then, my support is not needed for such a decision.

Alan

At 27/08/2017 03:25 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>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