<html>
<body>
See, I knew I had forgotten something important!<br><br>
I would not list the issue as PICs, but rather ensuring consumer
protection for TLD strings normally associated with highly regulated
activities.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 14/06/2016 05:47 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hi Alan (and everyone)<br><br>
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 <br><br>
Holly<br>
On 15 Jun 2016, at 1:57 am, Tijani BEN JEMAA
<<a href="mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn">
tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn</a>> wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font color="#002E7A">Dear
Alan,</font><br>
<font color="#002E7A"><br>
I agree with your answers to the board questions. I think they are valid
to be the At-Large ones. <br>
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<br>
</font><br>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<b>Tijani BEN JEMAA<br>
</b>Executive Director<br>
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (<b>FMAI</b>)<br>
Phone: +216 98 330 114<br>
+216 52 385 114<br>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Le 13 juin 2016 à 21:44, Alan
Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> a écrit :<br><br>
I agree with Olivier, but I will nevertheless play the game (but am
ignoring the "one slide" constraint to start.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 13/06/2016 11:12 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Dear ALAC,<br><br>
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.<br>
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.<br><br>
Some questions to guide you:<br>
1. Initiation of next round - do you think a date should be identified so
that ICANN has a target to work towards?</blockquote><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
If that illusion to occult practices is not sufficiently clear, there is
no way to predict a date.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">2. Requirements for round
initiation - what do you think should be in place before the next round
is initiated?</blockquote><br>
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.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">3. Improvements - what elements
of the new gTLD program should be improved for next
round?</blockquote><br>
- Community evaluations that are not Draconian and nearly impossible to
meet.<br><br>
- If we decide that we need some level of applicant support for
disadvantaged economies, those rules to should not be nearly impossible
to meet.<br><br>
- 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.<br><br>
- Formal rules on private use of generic words<br><br>
- I'm sure there are more that have slipped my mind at the
moment.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">4. Other aspects that are of
concern to the ALAC?</blockquote><br>
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>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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.<br><br>
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.<br>
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.<br><br>
Thank you in advance and apologies for the short notice.<br><br>
Best regards,<br><br>
Rinalia<br><br>
on behalf of the ICANN Board<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit<br>
Content-Disposition: inline<br>
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:<br>
1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:FFI6acGgaHgkljw6nSfaWPz+r0bVcVMCUIg6dand+B99rO4q6GuAwBGgO2N98Vn2ARdbNK7d8FNFypxe7wL0aYD3+auvIYZJtvzgVVQ1fKmfKg7xZ1K+zUznzX9ioup1zpHUi5Lg83QOkpNuq3IIQkvK/MPVhQ/ZlY0eImbYdFlkru0scp0xou/dO7hc9wj/<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ALAC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br><br>
At-Large Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org/">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
<br>
ALAC Working Wiki:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a>
</blockquote><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ALAC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br><br>
At-Large Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org/">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
<br>
ALAC Working Wiki:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a>
</blockquote><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ALAC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br><br>
At-Large Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a><br>
ALAC Working Wiki:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC" eudora="autourl">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC</a>
)</blockquote></blockquote></body>
</html>