Dear Rinalia,

I must admit that I am very surprised with the language used in your request and the questions that are asked. There are currently several processes which need to complete before a "next round" is even thought of. The CCT-RT and the "New gTLD Subsequent Round PDP" are very careful indeed in not presuming that a next round is going to happen, yet the language which you use in your email appears to point toward the fact that the Board is already intent on starting a "next round". Worse still it asks the unbelievable question of whether we should set a target date to work towards to initiate a next round? That would indeed be the best way to repeat all of the mistakes that were done in the current round and to irritate more governments and end users. The issue of a "next round" is so unwelcome at present that if the term "next round" is used in the CCT-RT, they need to put a dollar in a virtual swear box as a penalty.

Judging from your email, I am in fear that the Board, in its current wisdom, is far removed from understanding the current greed and lack of public interest found from the current round of new gTLDs. I am flabbergasted.

Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 13/06/2016 17:12, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:

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
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html