Re: [ALAC] Request for a snapshot view on next round new gTLD program outlook from the ALAC for the ICANN Board
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 <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>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 âservice 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.â
Hi Alan No, you aren’t misreading what is being said. Certainly my view is that we need to both complete this round and have a long, hard look at the issues raised - particularly the issues ALAC raised (Evan and others). So yes, our (or at least my) view is that ICANN should not even presume there will be another round - until all the reviews, discussion has taken place. Holly On 14 Jun 2016, at 11:58 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
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.​
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+(ALA...)
+1 !!! "ICANN should not even presume there will be another round", unless all the reviews and discussions have concluded otherwise. Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: Holly Raiche To: Alan Greenberg Cc: ALAC Working List Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 1:52 PM Subject: Re: [ALAC] Request for a snapshot view on next round new gTLDprogram outlook from the ALAC for the ICANN Board Hi Alan No, you aren’t misreading what is being said. Certainly my view is that we need to both complete this round and have a long, hard look at the issues raised - particularly the issues ALAC raised (Evan and others). So yes, our (or at least my) view is that ICANN should not even presume there will be another round - until all the reviews, discussion has taken place. Holly On 14 Jun 2016, at 11:58 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: 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.​ _______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Holly Raiche -
Kan Kaili