...
- Evan Leibovitch (12.11.11)
--
Hi,
In the context of the next IANA contract and the requirements for full documentation, having documented this and brought it to the attention of the Board might be significant. So it might be worth writing it up. What do others think.
Also, in the past was the ALAC position given to the Board as advice or to the Staff as comments?
Avri (12.11.11)
--
Thank you so much, Evan, great summary! That's roughly the scorecard we could present. Since only last one (IO) has been "accepted", I wonder whether we should move to draft the procedure asap, although I haven't seen GAC provided the procedure for early warning or LPI Objection.
Hong Xue (12.11.11)
--
Some issues , as Evan said will not be addressed correctly since it is almost impossible to reach consensus and at same time I believe the process needs to start , as any new issue - never done before - we will face some challenges, but not to move is not a good advice.
IMO we, as At large members, need to keep a close eye on this process to raise any problems we are seeing, may become too big to solve afterwards.
I am seeing a lot of interest about the new gTLDs from several different groups. Hope ICANN with our help can manage properly the whole process addressing the problems as they come out.
Kisses to all
Vanda Scartezini (13.11.11)
--
I would also want to agree to this that there is a need for At-Large to play its role in ensuring ICANN stays both transparent and accountable starting from the very first application round. Obviously the first round will help in generating a learning around what issues may arise and how ICANN will look at mitigating them.
The second important thing is that community gtlds cannot be ruled out. Another important aspect is the capacity building and awareness aspect. If one looks deeper there is an opportunity in generating innovation in the internet addressing space here and with every innovation come a number of resulting issues and solutions.
New gtld applications will not only be for the privileged world, there may be an opportunity here through the need of generating awareness across the RALO regions about the new gtld program and this might also be worth considering that we specifically propose to ICANN that this role be shared.
Again, it might also be an awareness and adoption issue concerning "anti-new gTLD dissent", as long as the playing field is open and allows developing to participate equally with the JAS proposal opportunity, this WG may specifically play that part. Raising awareness at the bottom of the gtld innovation value chain may help decrease the anti-new gTLD dissent. Don't you all think that we have an important role to play here together and within this WG?
Fouad Bajwa (13.11.11)
--
>> - when will there be a 2nd round
>> - how will ICANN decide which applications get handled when
>
> These issues may be of concern to the domain industry and to
> organisations thinking of applying for TLDs.
> The have absolutely no bearing on the public at large that has no
> interest in acquiring domains, let alone TLDs.
I don't think that's right.
One of the things I have heard advocated recently is that "DotBrands" TLDs be rolled out first. To my way of thinking, allowing trademark owners to establish billboards in the Internet's infrastructure ahead of open, generic spaces where users could actually register and use names would a very unsatisfactory result for the public at large.
I think the At Large also could see an interest in ensuring that the first batch included a fair mix of TLDs designed for/targeted at people in a diverse geographic area and in a wide representation of language sets.
Bret Fausett (14.11.11)
--