Bret Fausett wrote:
Brendler, Beau wrote:
This statement is in direct opposition to the NA-RALO position and we will not support it.
What was the NA-RALO position? Do we have something in writing or, if not, can you give me a quick summary?
From the minutes of this month's conference call: (https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?summary_minutes_12_january_2009)
- Do we want to take a stand, as a region, on this? Beau has already taken the stand that he is not opposed to the new gTLD process per se but ICANN needs to get its house in order before this can happen.This brings up two questions:What advice should ALAC give to the board on the process?What other concerns should ALAC be voicing also? Danny mentioned that we (and other constituencies) have all kinds of concerns that need to be addressed before ICANN can accept a large number of TLDs.Perhaps if just a limited number of TLDs (maybe about 12 to 20) were accepted per year it might work but if a whole deluge came in at once it would be problematic.Everybody seemed happy with this approach and were in agreement with Danny and Beau.
It was noted that Beau had the support from the entire NARALO region.It was noted that this must be kept separate from IDN TLDs.We need to make sure that Beau’s concerns (as per the document he has written) are incorporated into any ALAC statement.Beau and Alan will bring this forward at the ALAC meeting tomorrow with the region’s support
- Evan