After reading your email and Olivier's reply, I have to say that I agree with Olivier that it is way too early even to talk about the "next round".

As I am a member of CCT-RT and its Competition & Consumer Trust Subteam, although we all agreed that "substitutibility" of one good of another one is the definition of a market, but so far we still have not been able to define a market of gTLDs' competition.

Also recalling that, when Bruce Tonkin met with CCT-RT in Marrakech, he explained that "the introduction of new gTLDs was not to introduce competition". This leads to the question of what is the exact reason and purpose of the new gTLD program.

As far as I know, even establishing GNSO's new gTLD PDP WG before CCT-RT completes its report was quite a surprise within both ALAC and GAC, as well as to CCT-RT itself.

Meanwhile, it is well recognized that the new gTLD program has brought many unwanted side-effects. These include large scale speculation (my email about the China situation is attached) and consumer trust issues, as well as brand-name owners' unwanted defensive registrations.

Furthermore, I personally suspect that the linearly structured names have some kind of theoritical and fundamental incompatibility with the new gTLD program, while this is further discussed within the CCT Review team.

As a matter of fact, the new gTLD program was higly controversial from the very beginning. The following was found in Wikipedia: Following the vote to expand gTLDs, many trade associations and large companies, led by the Association of National Advertisers, formed the Coalition for Responsible Internet Domain Oversight. The coalition opposes the expansion of gTLDs, citing "its deeply flawed justification, excessive cost and harm to brand owners."^[39] In a statement to the US Congress on December 9, 2011, National Restaurant Association vice president Scott DeFife stated, "Even beyond the financial toll the gTLD program will exact on millions of U.S. businesses, the Association believes that ICANN’s program will confuse consumers by spreading Internet searches across hundreds or even thousands of new top-level domains."^[40]Another opponent is Esther Dyson, the founding chairperson of ICANN, who wrote that the expansion "will create jobs [for lawyers, marketers and others] but little extra value."^[41]

Thus, I wonder why the Board would want to discuss about the "next round" and where this urgency came from. I also wonder if such information can be disclosed, at least for the purpose of Board transparency. In order to demonstrate ICANN is indeed resposible to the world's Internet multi-stakehoders, especially during the time of the current transition, I would strongly suggest the Board to postpone any such discussions about this issue until our CCT-RT has completed its task, and the entire Internet community has reached a consensus on the evaluation of this current new gTLD program.

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 12:42 AM

Subject: Re: [ALAC] Request for a snapshot view on next round new gTLD program outlook from the ALAC for the ICANN Board

Dear ALAC,

In Helsinki, the Board will meet to discuss the outlook for the next round of the new gTLD Program. To support our discussions, we would like to be informed by stakeholder views.

I have been requested to obtain the view of the ALAC. Would it be possible for the ALAC to provide a snapshot of its views on this topic in one slide? Please note that this information and presentation format would be applied to each stakeholder group's views.

Some questions to guide you:

1. Initiation of next round - do you think a date should be identified so that ICANN has a target to work towards?

2. Requirements for round initiation - what do you think should be in place before the next round is initiated?

3. Improvements - what elements of the new gTLD program should be improved for next round?

4. Other aspects that are of concern to the ALAC?

For the Board to have a chance to review the slide before its discussion, it would be good to receive the slide by 23 June 2016 latest.

I do understand that this is short notice. If you do not have sufficient time to develop a formal position, informal input would be sufficient at this time and it would be appreciated.

The Board is likely to revisit the topic again during its workshop in September. There is thus another chance to provide a more extensive view, but for now the Board would just like to have a sense from the community on the topic to guide its early deliberations.

Thank you in advance and apologies for the short notice.

Best regards,

Rinalia

on behalf of the ICANN Board