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.​