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.

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.

If I am misreading the messages, I am sure people will point it out.

Alan

At 13/06/2016 06:09 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

On 13 June 2016 at 22:44, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote:

There are those in At-Large who would ask whether re really need any more TLDs. But I see that as (perhaps sadly) inevitable...

WHY?

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:

"ALAC cannot endorse or condone any future gTLD delegations until ICANN Board and staff have made a sufficiently demonstrated (to OUR satisfaction) that

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

b) Expansion in the gTLD namespace serves an identifiable public interest, enhancing stability and trust in the DNS

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"

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.