[council] ALAC response on new gTLD strategy

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 For info:

-----Original Message-----
From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, 21 June 2005 7:01 PM

Olof Nordling ha scritto:
> The very first step is now to verify the completeness of the list of 
> questions. Is the list adequate and sufficiently complete to inform 
> the implementation process in practice? Comments on that aspect are 
> welcome by 22 July, i.e. a week after the end of the ICANN meeting in
Luxemburg.

Hello,

first of all, thanks for this document; I think that - also given the
increasing concerns that the recent round of new gTLDs is causing
outside the ICANN world - it is very important to make things progress
in this field. The ALAC will definitely set aside some time in
Luxembourg to address the issue you are posing.

At the same time, please let me share a personal concern with the
matrix-based contribution approach as described in this draft. It is not
entirely clear in the document whether the matrix is just intended to
indicate staff expectations in terms of who will comment what, or
whether it is meant to be an actual binding assignment of tasks, in the
sense that comments on issues other than those marked with an X will be
ignored.

In any case, for what regards the ALAC, we expect to be consulted on all
issues regarding the new gTLD process, and not just on those where we
currently have the X in the matrix. In particular, "policy-level" 
advisory committees, such as the ALAC and the GAC, were designed to
provide advice on the point of view of specific stakeholder groups on
all policy matters discussed by ICANN; I think that it is not
conceivable to limit the issues on which they are allowed to express
advice.

Also, more generally, I do not think that it is a great idea to mix a
list of internal ICANN entities and constituencies, intergovernmental
organizations, other types of associations, all in a flat list of
contributors. Singling out specific organizations is another thing I
would not recommend - why are you explicitly asking advice to the OECD
and WIPO, but not, say, to UNESCO, which is deeply involved in
[multi]linguistic matters? Why do you ask the IETF, but not the W3C or
the ITU? I would rather suggest that you open up a general public
comment period, which you should publicize by warning all relevant
institutions and encouraging participation, but not single out any
specific external contributor.

Regards,
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...