​Indeed, the feedback received from such research might have direct impact on issues such as geographic names, so IMO this WG is FAR FAR premature. The industry compact of domain sellers and speculative buyers -- the overwhelming beneficiaries of the expansion(2) -- is driving this to happen through the GNSO, and ALAC is one of the few voices that even has the ICANN-given mandate to slow it down and have it done right (if at all).

That something as significant as the subsequent-round process is GNSO driven and not a full CCWG is cause for concern. Obviously too few lessons have been learned from the debacles of the past.

So At-Large is back in reaction mode just like we were the first time. Likewise, that the GAC is "invited to participate" in the discussion of geo names, rather than itself be the driver, is an indictment of ICANN's process. The result of this mess is a continuation (and perhaps escalation) of the kind of problems that exist with Amazon and the Red Cross, a continued erosion of trust in ICANN's stewardship of domains, and a further undermining of multistakeholderism in general.

I would consider unacceptable any participation in such a WG without explicit disclaimer that its work -- as that of the other WGs involved in this PDP -- cannot be considered finished until a substantial review of the previous round has taken place and that the results of any such review be integrated in the WGs' outcomes.