On 23 January 2014 02:51, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan@unam.mx> wrote:
2. if the conclusion about the PICs is that they are worthless and it is now proved ex-post-facto, start drafting, and consulting the RALOs, for a prompt and clear communication. If they can be fixed proposed a fix, if they can't and we all agree, let's put it in writing again. All this should help prepare better cases than the one lost by numerous avoidable reasons, and a better environment for them. Let's serve the at-large users.
and then... On 23 January 2014 03:31, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>wrote:
It seems to me that a review of this process (as with past reviews of "failed" or unsatisfactory initiatives from the point of view of the At-Large) would fuel arguments/making a case for improving or even "rebooting" the new gTLD program.
ICANN may not have listened to all of the At-Large advice/input in the past, but that should not stop the At-Large or the ALAC from presenting its point of view in the interest of end users.
I can't disagree. But it's not for lack of trying. In the past when I tried to get ALAC to convey deep concerns about the state of the gTLD program -- concerns that called for radical change to improve the public interest component of the expansion -- I got shot down by my own community. Have a look at this statement I drafted in 2011<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=31164161>that never made it for ALAC consideration, let alone a vote. Specifically, read the comments that together (IMO) induce a chilling effect on calls for anything more than superficial change. - Evan