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
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+(ALA...)
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Hello, I tend to align with Olivier's reservations. I think the first question should have been to ask whether a new round is required. I believe the outcome of that should indeed determine whether to proceed or not. A PC to the community on this should be a step forward, so board can receive formal view of SO/AC for her decision making. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 13 Jun 2016 5:44 p.m., "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
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 listALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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...)
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Um, well...+1. This is not about shooting the emissary. The optics here will create a lot more noise in the channel. FWIW, I can confirm that in the CCT RT discussions to date, we are constantly reminded not to cloud issues with predictions of a next round. We are resolute that any recommendation must be fact and evidence-based. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
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 listALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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...)
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Hi, Rinalia, 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. Best regards, Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond To: Rinalia Abdul Rahim ; ALAC Working List 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 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+(ALA...) -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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...)
Dear Olivier, The Board is aware of all the reviews that are currently being done. Certainly no decision will be made about the next round without the input from these reviews. There are strong views being made to the Board about the need to start the next round. I think you can make an educated guess on where it is coming from. Rather than listen to one group, the Board would like to have a "sense" of the matter from all groups. A snapshot of the sense of the community in time if you will while we wait for the results of the reviews. If you choose not to provide input to the Board at this time on the matter, that is entirely up to you. In my personal view, you would give up an opportunity to share what you think, which would be a pity because it gives more room for other views to stand alone without counter balance. The formulation of the guiding questions is mine, based on what I think the key contention points would be. In a sense, it is what I think are aspects of what would be valuable for the Board to hear from the ALAC plus other aspects that you think are important. Best regards, Rinalia On Tuesday, 14 June 2016, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
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 listALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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...)
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 13 Jun 2016 19:54, "Rinalia Abdul Rahim" <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
The formulation of the guiding questions is mine, based on what I think
the key contention points would be. In a sense, it is what I think are aspects of what would be valuable for the Board to hear from the ALAC plus other aspects that you think are important.
SO: I think this part is very much helpful. Thanks Rinalia for the questions and on that note, I do suggest that ALAC formerly respond to the questions; answering it from the general understanding that it is not the right time to talk about starting a new gTLD round. Regards
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
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+(ALA...)
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Hi, Rinalia, Thank you for this reply. Now I understand. In short, the Board has to do what the Board has to do. Meanwhile, I hereby request the opinions expressed in my email just sent to you and others as my input to ALAC's response to your questions. Thank you again. Best regards, Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: Rinalia Abdul Rahim To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: ALAC Working List Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 2:53 AM Subject: Re: [ALAC] Request for a snapshot view on next round new gTLD program outlook from the ALAC for the ICANN Board Dear Olivier, The Board is aware of all the reviews that are currently being done. Certainly no decision will be made about the next round without the input from these reviews. There are strong views being made to the Board about the need to start the next round. I think you can make an educated guess on where it is coming from. Rather than listen to one group, the Board would like to have a "sense" of the matter from all groups. A snapshot of the sense of the community in time if you will while we wait for the results of the reviews. If you choose not to provide input to the Board at this time on the matter, that is entirely up to you. In my personal view, you would give up an opportunity to share what you think, which would be a pity because it gives more room for other views to stand alone without counter balance. The formulation of the guiding questions is mine, based on what I think the key contention points would be. In a sense, it is what I think are aspects of what would be valuable for the Board to hear from the ALAC plus other aspects that you think are important. Best regards, Rinalia On Tuesday, 14 June 2016, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote: 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+(ALA...) -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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...)
Hi, Kaili. It would be hard to fit all your input text into one slide together with other input. Can you condense your input into 2-3 key messages/questions? This would be very helpful. 谢谢！ Rinalia On Tuesday, 14 June 2016, Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kankaili@gmail.com');>> wrote:
Hi, Rinalia,
Thank you for this reply. Now I understand. In short, the Board has to do what the Board has to do.
Meanwhile, I hereby request the opinions expressed in my email just sent to you and others as my input to ALAC's response to your questions.
Thank you again.
Best regards, Kaili
----- Original Message ----- *From:* Rinalia Abdul Rahim *To:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* ALAC Working List *Sent:* Tuesday, June 14, 2016 2:53 AM *Subject:* Re: [ALAC] Request for a snapshot view on next round new gTLD program outlook from the ALAC for the ICANN Board
Dear Olivier,
The Board is aware of all the reviews that are currently being done. Certainly no decision will be made about the next round without the input from these reviews.
There are strong views being made to the Board about the need to start the next round. I think you can make an educated guess on where it is coming from. Rather than listen to one group, the Board would like to have a "sense" of the matter from all groups. A snapshot of the sense of the community in time if you will while we wait for the results of the reviews.
If you choose not to provide input to the Board at this time on the matter, that is entirely up to you. In my personal view, you would give up an opportunity to share what you think, which would be a pity because it gives more room for other views to stand alone without counter balance.
The formulation of the guiding questions is mine, based on what I think the key contention points would be. In a sense, it is what I think are aspects of what would be valuable for the Board to hear from the ALAC plus other aspects that you think are important.
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
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 listALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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...)
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Hi, Rinalia, I thought it would be the ALAC staff, ALT or Alan to put everybody's opinions together into a slide. I don't think I am in a postion to represent ALAC. Shouldn't ALAC open a discussion via email on this and reach conclusions? If ALAC has yet to decide on having a discussion and reaching conclusions on this important matter, I hereby ask ALAC to do so. Meanwhile, I wonder if I need to resend my earlier reply to you to any other mailing list as my input to this discussion. Thank you again. Best regards, Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: Rinalia Abdul Rahim To: Kan Kaili Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ; ALAC Working List Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 3:37 AM Subject: Request for a snapshot view on next round new gTLD program outlook from the ALAC for the ICANN Board Hi, Kaili. It would be hard to fit all your input text into one slide together with other input. Can you condense your input into 2-3 key messages/questions? This would be very helpful. 谢谢！ Rinalia On Tuesday, 14 June 2016, Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, Rinalia, Thank you for this reply. Now I understand. In short, the Board has to do what the Board has to do. Meanwhile, I hereby request the opinions expressed in my email just sent to you and others as my input to ALAC's response to your questions. Thank you again. Best regards, Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: Rinalia Abdul Rahim To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: ALAC Working List Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 2:53 AM Subject: Re: [ALAC] Request for a snapshot view on next round new gTLD program outlook from the ALAC for the ICANN Board Dear Olivier, The Board is aware of all the reviews that are currently being done. Certainly no decision will be made about the next round without the input from these reviews. There are strong views being made to the Board about the need to start the next round. I think you can make an educated guess on where it is coming from. Rather than listen to one group, the Board would like to have a "sense" of the matter from all groups. A snapshot of the sense of the community in time if you will while we wait for the results of the reviews. If you choose not to provide input to the Board at this time on the matter, that is entirely up to you. In my personal view, you would give up an opportunity to share what you think, which would be a pity because it gives more room for other views to stand alone without counter balance. The formulation of the guiding questions is mine, based on what I think the key contention points would be. In a sense, it is what I think are aspects of what would be valuable for the Board to hear from the ALAC plus other aspects that you think are important. Best regards, Rinalia On Tuesday, 14 June 2016, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote: 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+(ALA...) -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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...)
Hi Rinalia, I wholeheartedly endorse Olivier's response. To complement his point, IMO there are an crucial question missing from your list that ought to be asked BY ALAC of the Board: - What is the public-interest justification for the new round? - What research has ICANN done to demonstrate *any* demand for another round from outside of the vested-interest domain selling and reselling industries? - As sales of domains from gTLDs in the previous round have dramatically underperformed expectations, and a number of previous-round applicants have encountered stability issues, how will the influx of yet another round expected to increase the stability of the DNS? Might it not have the opposite effect? - What lessons has the Board learned from the experiences of the last round? In order for the ALAC to provide useful advice, such feedback would be useful. On 13 June 2016 at 17:12, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> 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+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Geneva, CH Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
Hello, Evan. I have missed seeing you at ICANN meetings. These are excellent questions and to my mind the kinds of things that ought to be posed to the Board and the rest of the community. I would suggest tweaking the last question to include staff as well. Best regards, Rinalia On Tuesday, 14 June 2016, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hi Rinalia,
I wholeheartedly endorse Olivier's response.
To complement his point, IMO there are an crucial question missing from your list that ought to be asked BY ALAC of the Board:
- What is the public-interest justification for the new round?
- What research has ICANN done to demonstrate *any* demand for another round from outside of the vested-interest domain selling and reselling industries?
- As sales of domains from gTLDs in the previous round have dramatically underperformed expectations, and a number of previous-round applicants have encountered stability issues, how will the influx of yet another round expected to increase the stability of the DNS? Might it not have the opposite effect?
- What lessons has the Board learned from the experiences of the last round?
In order for the ALAC to provide useful advice, such feedback would be useful.
On 13 June 2016 at 17:12, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com');>> 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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Geneva, CH
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
Allow me to add another question: What is the SSAC advice - what was it before the first round and has it been followed. And further to Evan’s questions, if the next round is to proceed anyway, what needs to be done to assist those outside of the US and Europe to apply, and have we had a really good look sat the criteria to understand if there are barriers to a more global applicant applicant base. Also, I certainly endorse Evan’s questions Holly On 14 Jun 2016, at 5:22 am, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hi Rinalia,
I wholeheartedly endorse Olivier's response.
To complement his point, IMO there are an crucial question missing from your list that ought to be asked BY ALAC of the Board:
- What is the public-interest justification for the new round?
- What research has ICANN done to demonstrate *any* demand for another round from outside of the vested-interest domain selling and reselling industries?
- As sales of domains from gTLDs in the previous round have dramatically underperformed expectations, and a number of previous-round applicants have encountered stability issues, how will the influx of yet another round expected to increase the stability of the DNS? Might it not have the opposite effect?
- What lessons has the Board learned from the experiences of the last round?
In order for the ALAC to provide useful advice, such feedback would be useful.
On 13 June 2016 at 17:12, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> 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+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Geneva, CH Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ 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! Endorsing all of Evan's questions and process. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hi Rinalia,
I wholeheartedly endorse Olivier's response.
To complement his point, IMO there are an crucial question missing from your list that ought to be asked BY ALAC of the Board:
- What is the public-interest justification for the new round?
- What research has ICANN done to demonstrate *any* demand for another round from outside of the vested-interest domain selling and reselling industries?
- As sales of domains from gTLDs in the previous round have dramatically underperformed expectations, and a number of previous-round applicants have encountered stability issues, how will the influx of yet another round expected to increase the stability of the DNS? Might it not have the opposite effect?
- What lessons has the Board learned from the experiences of the last round?
In order for the ALAC to provide useful advice, such feedback would be useful.
On 13 June 2016 at 17:12, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> 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+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Geneva, CH
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Hi Rinalia. I understood we are still debating it under the GNSO-newgTLD-WG, where an important number of At Large members are also participating. I believe WG was create to answer those questions.. we are in the middle of this process with weekly calls.. guess we can not go faster than that. Besides, in this region(LAC) users here are still facing a lack of choice in this round we need to fix... (will send to you an email about it separately since I already shared it with ALT) From: <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> Date: Monday, June 13, 2016 at 12:12 PM To: ALAC Working List <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [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
participants (8)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
Holly Raiche -
Kan Kaili -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Rinalia Abdul Rahim -
Seun Ojedeji -
Vanda Scartezini