Are all these really important issues for ALAC? That is, are they important to non-registrant end users? Really?
Before ALAC starts another iteration of fighting the battles of others (who are already well-spoken for within ICANN), it needs to do some important triage and focus its concern on the small number of issues that impact our (only) bylaw-mandated constituency.
1. Assumptions: Your paper assumes that the next round will
take the form of one large open round. There is no consensus in there PDP about
moving in that direction.
Why do end-users care about whether there is one large round or a bunch of smaller ones? Why would end-users care about various categories of TLDs unless there were some strict rules that engendered trust that the TLD string must be related to all of its subdomains?
2. Volumes: Your paper proposes an
arbitrarily large volume of new applications, all at once in a single
window. That is not a model that I would share.
There is a reasonable case to be made that too many TLDs, especially without any forced link between the TLD string and its subdomains, leads to consumer confusion and further diminishing trust. I would posit that this is the only issue on which ALAC has legitimate standing.
Outsourcing:
The paper is not quite consistent: on the one hand one has 'as
little as possible will be outsourced' and on the other hand one has
'evaluation and objection processing' may be outsourced 'to expert
firms'
Why should end users care? This issue might be of grave concern to registry applicants, but has absolutely no effect on end users at all. ALAC's meddling in issues that don't affect its constituency erode its already-weak authority within ICANN and offers legitimacy to those who questions its relevance to the overall decision-making processes.
4, Costs and Application
Support: The paper is silent on application support, whereas in
the light of the meagre outcome in 2012 in this respect, the eyes of
all are upon ICANN to effectively implement a workable and results
oriented application support programme. This is a question of
prioritization, in time and in the budget. Ploint 1, above, refers.
Yes, once upon a time ALAC cared a great deal about such issues that were only really relevant to a very small number of potential TLD applicants. But as we discovered through the last go-round, the effect on non-registrant end-users of the failure of the Applicant Support program was .... absolutely none at all. We must learn from that mistake.
As for general costs, end-users have a stake in ensuring that registries are stable and secure once operating, but they have little interest in the prices or processes of actually delegating or procuring the strings.
There were many teachable lessons in the last round .... both for ICANN and for ALAC. All eyes are on us too. If ALAC doesn't learn from its mistakes, and continues to get involved in ICANN issues that are irrelevant to end-users while doing disservice to issues that matter greatly, it will continue its slide into irrelevance.
All other constituencies have voices elsewhere. But the end user has no other voice but us. Let's use that voice strategically and wisely.
- Evan