Thanks John for this e-mail. 

 

 

We discussed this comment and a few questions were raised during the call last night.

 

1. “ALAC will not support a new gTLD round….”  Can you please confirm that the ALAC position refers only to the opening of the application window as opposed to ICANN and the community taking steps to prepare for the opening of the next application window.  When something like this came up previously with respect to the NCAP studies being a dependency for the next round, Justine in the attached e-mail, explained:

 

“The Subsequent Procedures WG can conclude its work, and implementation may proceed, BUT EITHER ICANN may not launch the application window until the NCAP study(ies) are completed and any recommendations resulting from those study(ies) are addressed in implementation OR ICANN may launch the application window and start the evaluation process, but no TLD may be delegated until the NCAP Study(ies) is/are completed and any recommendations resulting from those study(ies) are retroactively incorporated.”

 

       Can you please explain if this should be interpreted similarly – namely, that implementation can proceed in ALAC’s view?

 

2. “full implementation of CCT….recommendations are fully implemented.”  As you are no doubt aware, the CCT recommendations contain a number of levels.  Some are labeled as pre-requisites to the launch of the next round, others are not. 

 

1. Is the ALAC only referring to those recommendations that are deemed to be pre-requisites?  Or is the ALAC actually referring to ALL recommendations regardless of how they were labeled?
2. In addition, not all of the recommendations were accepted by the ICANN Board for immediate implementation.  Is the ALAC referring to only the ones that were accepted by the ICANN Board or to literally all of the recommendations regardless of whether they were accepted by the ICANN Board.

 

3. “full implementation of…RPM Recommendations are fully implemented”
1. Is the ALAC only referring to Phase One of the RPM work or to both Phase One (New gTLD protections) and Phase Two (UDRP)?
2. The GNSO RPM PDP Working Group leaders represented to the GNSO Council that they only believed that Phase One needed to be implemented by the time the first new gTLD in the next round enters into an Agreement or is delegated (not sure there was agreement on which one).  But in either case the GNSO has discussed the possibility of moving forward with SubPro (assuming it finishes first and has consensus recommendations accepted by the Council, etc.) even if the RPM Phase 1 Work is not done.  So, this is really related to Question 1 (see above).

 

4. Finally, your e-mail refers to “ALAC’s position as asserted to ICANN GDD at ICANN65.”
1. Is that position documented?  And if so, can you please send the position statement and rationale to this PDP Working Group for our review?
2. When was the ALAC position communicated to ICANN GDD?
3. Is there a transcript, presentation material, etc. of that meeting and can they be sent to this Working Group for Review?

 

I know these seem like a lot of questions, but I am assuming the e-mail you sent us was a brief summary of the conclusion of the ALAC position and it would be helpful for us to have all of the detail.

Thanks.

 

 

 

Hi everyone,

 

Just a useful reminder of ALAC’s position as asserted to ICANN GDD at ICANN65:

 

ALAC will not support a new gTLD round until full implementation of CCT and RPM recommendations are fully implemented.

 

Best regards,

 

John Laprise, Ph.D.

NARALO ALAC Representative

ALAC Vice Chair-Policy