<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">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 type="cite" class="cite" 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><dd>b) Expansion in the gTLD namespace serves an identifiable public
interest, enhancing stability and trust in the DNS<br><br>
</dd><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></body></html>