<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>+1 !!!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT face=宋体>"<FONT size=3>ICANN should not even presume
there will be another round", <STRONG>unless all the reviews
and discussions have concluded
otherwise</STRONG>.</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>Kaili</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 9pt 宋体">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 9pt 宋体; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=h.raiche@internode.on.net
href="mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net">Holly Raiche</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 9pt 宋体"><B>To:</B> <A title=alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">Alan Greenberg</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 9pt 宋体"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
href="mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org">ALAC Working List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 9pt 宋体"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, June 14, 2016 1:52 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 9pt 宋体"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [ALAC] Request for a snapshot
view on next round new gTLDprogram outlook from the ALAC for the ICANN
Board</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Hi Alan
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>No, you aren’t misreading what is being said. Certainly my view is
that we need to both complete this round and have a long, hard look at the
issues raised - particularly the issues ALAC raised (Evan and others).
So yes, our (or at least my) view is that ICANN should not even presume
there will be another round - until all the reviews, discussion has taken
place.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Holly<BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>On 14 Jun 2016, at 11:58 am, Alan Greenberg <<A
href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</A>>
wrote:</DIV><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>I thought I had made it clear that I was kicking off the discussion
with my personal views. If indeed there is a desire within the ALAC
(presumably in response to the wider community), then the ALAC could well
issue such advice. And indeed, if there is a strong beleif that we should
issue such advice, we would be derelict in not doing so.<BR><BR>At the
moment, I am hearing that ICANN should not set a date for a further round,
and indeed not even presume there will be such a round, or other mechanism
to allocate gTLDs, but rather wait for the current processes to progress.
<BR><BR>If I am misreading the messages, I am sure people will point it
out.<BR><BR>Alan<BR><BR>At 13/06/2016 06:09 PM, Evan Leibovitch
wrote:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite">On 13 June 2016 at 22:44, Alan
Greenberg <<A
href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</A> >
wrote:<BR>
<DL>
<DD>There are those in At-Large who would ask whether re really need any
more TLDs. But I see that as (perhaps sadly)
inevitable...<BR><BR></DD></DL>WHY? <BR><BR>If there is a consensus within
At-Large that no new rounds are are justified, it is reasonable for ALAC
advice to the Board to say:<BR><BR>"ALAC cannot endorse or condone any
future gTLD delegations until ICANN Board and staff have made a
sufficiently demonstrated (to OUR satisfaction) that
<DL>
<DD>a) Demand for new gTLDs exists beyond ICANN's contracted parties
(and their ​service providers), addressing a verified (ie, by a third
party) market demand<BR><BR>
<DD>b) Expansion in the gTLD namespace serves an identifiable public
interest, enhancing stability and trust in the DNS<BR><BR>
<DD>c) Full documentation of "lessons learned from the last round" is
created and -- if a new round is demonstrated through (a) and (b) above
-- provides substantial input to revised rules going
forward"<BR><BR></DD></DL><BR>The steamroller may indeed be inevitable;
heaven knows our advice has been ignored before. But if the internal (and
non conflicted) consensus is clear, ALAC is derelict if it does not
clearly articulate advice to the Board that such activity is happening
against (At-Large's perception of) the pubic
interest.​</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>_______________________________________________<BR>ALAC
mailing list<BR><A
href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</A><BR>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac<BR><BR>At-Large
Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org<BR>ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>ALAC mailing
list<BR>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<BR>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac<BR><BR>At-Large
Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org<BR>ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>