On 21 August 2013 12:06, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
For the record, it was sent for its interest, not because I thought it needed our formal attention.
My comments were related to: *"Not really, that was a real WE. Plenty of opportunities for all of us to
have caught this earlier..."*
I agree with Olivier that this was not the kind of thing that "we" needed to be on the lookout for as the issue, in itself, has no main relevance to At-Large. Of course, with every day that goes by, some new unintended consequence shows up. (or maybe some of these consequences were intended, but certainly nasty in intent if so) - The wild and weird world of objection processes - "Priority roulette" - Prioritisation (and the aftermath of poor categorisation) - IDN variants - Applicant support (or rather, the general inaccessibility of the expansion in much of the world) - The tempest that is "Closed generics" - Compliance scaling - When is a community a real community? And who tells the difference - Confusion over string confusion - Making sense of the GAC's confused responses - The boondoggle about metrics - The aborted HSTLD effort And surely there are more to come. I really really would like to have ALAC advocate that, after IDNs, dot-brands and a few of the first "open" gTLDs are launched. ICANN take a breath and wait at least six months or so to see what happens before going on with the others. While I still think the whole expansion was a colossal mistake, it is not against the aims of ALAC to suggest slowing down the release of TLDs to determine the public real-world consequences. The word "delay" has been taken as a profanity within the ICANN bubble, but I see no reason for ALAC to support an ongoing blind rush into the unknown. There is NO end-user demand for hundreds of TLDs. And nobody can prove my statement incorrect because no research has been done on the subject. We can barely do a survey on the Applicant Support program, let alone on global public demand for the whole gTLD expansion. - Evan