[At-Large] [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Planning for Round Two of New gTLDS is open?

Mon Jul 1 15:29:54 UTC 2019

I think I'm inclined to agree with Ricardo in this. Sure, it can be a slippery slope and we want to ensure that the issues of the previous round are resolved prior to a new one but organizational readiness that, as yet, has cost nothing, probably shouldn't be painted as a conspiracy.

Jonathan Zuck
Executive Director
Innovators Network Foundation
www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org>

From: Ricardo Holmquist
Sent: Monday, 1 July, 3:56 pm
Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [At-Large] [registration-issues-wg] Planning for Round Two of New gTLDS is open?
To: Alberto Soto
Cc: cpwg at icann.org, cw at christopherwilkinson.eu, At-Large Worldwide

Hi all,
I am not sure we are addressing the same issues here. At ICANN 66 there was a presentation of ICANN org about this.

Maybe I am too naive, and don´t see the conspiracies around, but the presentation just showed an organization trying to prepare for something, the new round of gTLDs, that instead of waiting for a new AGB to be ready (all WT were supposed to end by December 2019), is planning, both organizational and financially (CFO was present, and answered some of the questions).

We are expecting/asking/claiming ICANN to be more transparent each day, but once they do something in that direction, we all are looking for the conspiracies.

As ALAC we are not in a hurry for a new round. In my case, I don´t even think we need one, there are so many alternatives now. (And still ask a millennial to look for a name to his company, and will always point to a .com or worst, they won't ever have one website, is far too complicated, they are just setting a facebook site or a Instagram one for the youngest).

But, yes, there is still a lot of people in other constituencies asking for this new round to happen fast, claiming over 20.000 names are looking for a TLD, so ICANN seems to be "conservative" expecting just a 10% of that, and hearing RSSAC and SSAC, that no more than a thousand should be included in the root zone by year, or we might have a root stability problem.

Is ICANN rushing anyone with this?, I really don't think so. I not hearing us?, again, I don't think so. In fact from a business stand point I will call them irresponsibles if they were not planning for this.

Hope this helps

Regards

Ricardo

El lun., 1 jul. 2019 a las 14:27, Alberto Soto (<alberto at soto.net.ar<mailto:alberto at soto.net.ar>>) escribió:
n ICANN, the change in the multi-stakeholder model is being addressed. In Barcelona, at the ALAC meeting with the ICANN Board, I asked if this change would also imply a change in the bottom-up work methodology that is essential to establish our relationship with the end users and obtain the necessary feedbak for the generation of policies They answered that that would not change.
This type of measures, are showing that this methodology has already changed, that the opinion of several of the multiple stakeholders is no longer taken into account ..

Regards

Alberto

De: At-Large <at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>> en nombre de Kaili Kan <kankaili at gmail.com<mailto:kankaili at gmail.com>>
Fecha: lunes, 1 de julio de 2019, 07:00
Para: "cw at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>" <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
CC: "cpwg at icann.org<mailto:cpwg at icann.org>" <cpwg at icann.org<mailto:cpwg at icann.org>>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>>
Asunto: Re: [At-Large] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Planning for Round Two of New gTLDS is open?

Yes, this seems to be ignoring our opinions expressed.

However, as the gTLD market is already over-saturated, I believe the results of another round will work against those who are pushing for it.  Thus, after saying what should be said, we may just wait and see ...    ALAC will be be blamed anyway.

Also, if there is going to be another CCT-RT for that round, I would gladly volunteer for it.   : )

Kaili

On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 1:01 AM cw at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw at christopherwilkinson.eu><cw at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:
Indeed:

1. The ICANN working paper ignores several key points that have been raised in the PDP, by ALAC, and in the meetings in ICANN65.

2.  The Circle ID article by the CEO of Cum Laude, presumably is an embarrassment to the PDP CoChairs.

CW

_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20190701/1ffb5582/attachment-0001.html>