[At-Large] [ALAC] Reference: ICC Ruling on Objections filed by the ALAC

[Evan Leibovitch]

On 23 January 2014 02:51, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan at unam.mx>
 wrote:


> 2. if the conclusion about the PICs is that they are worthless and it is
> now proved ex-post-facto, start drafting, and consulting the RALOs, for a
> prompt and clear communication. If they can be fixed proposed a fix, if
> they can't and we all agree, let's put it in writing again. All this should
> help prepare better cases than the one lost by numerous avoidable reasons,
> and a better environment for them. Let's serve the at-large users.
>

and then...

On 23 January 2014 03:31, Rinalia Abdul Rahim
<rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>wrote:

> It seems to me that a review of this process (as with past reviews of
> "failed" or unsatisfactory initiatives from the point of view of the
> At-Large) would fuel arguments/making a case for improving or even
> "rebooting" the new gTLD program.
>
> ICANN may not have listened to all of the At-Large advice/input in the
> past, but that should not stop the At-Large or the ALAC from presenting its
> point of view in the interest of end users.
>


I can't disagree. But it's not for lack of trying.

In the past when I tried to get ALAC to convey deep concerns about the
state of the gTLD program -- concerns that called for radical change to
improve the public interest component of the expansion -- I got shot down
by my own community.

Have a look at this statement I drafted in
2011<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=31164161>that
never made it for ALAC consideration, let alone a vote. Specifically,
read the comments that together (IMO) induce a chilling effect on calls for
anything more than superficial change.

- Evan