[ALAC] Red Cross and IOC Protection under the new gTLD process
evan at telly.org
Fri Feb 24 21:56:13 UTC 2012
On 24 February 2012 16:41, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> I have made it clear that to the extent that there have been comments
> on the issue within At-Large and ALAC, the tone has been that special
> exemptions for these bodies should not be granted. That view is
> shared by some other participants in the DT. However, it was also
> generally accepted that an exemption has already been granted and
> there is little opportunity for the GNSO to change the basic concept.
It is absolutely necessary to make clear the position that "the exemption
has already been granted" is a grotesque subversion of the
multi-stakeholder model that diminishes public respect for ICANN. This
example makes clear that the MSM can be easily dispensed when politically
I also object to the substance of the proposal, but what is truly odious is
this method of decision making in which bad decisions are make in secret
and then stakeholders are left to determine the best way to "polish the
Personally, I disagree with our accepting a "best that we can get" fallback
position because it validates (and encourages more use of) this top-down,
opaque process. I would rather boycott this exercise in futility, but
Or opposition to both the substance and the process of this should be clear
and unambiguous, IMO.
> My personal position has been that although these special exemptions
> are not what I would have preferred, it is clear that the Board has
> already agreed to the basic concept, and the DT's major
> responsibility is to ensure that the exemptions can be implemented in
> as rational and effective means as possible, minimizing the need for
> extraordinary action later in the process and definitely minimizing
> the impact on other gTLD applicants.
> The DT decided that the first priority was to provide clarification
> on how top-level domains should be treated, as it was viewed as
> important that any changes be finalized prior to the end of the gTLD
> application period. Following extensive discussion, the group has
> recommendation on how Section 184.108.40.206.3 should be revised.
> This recommendation, or what results from discussions over the next
> week, will be discussed with interested members of the GAC on a
> teleconference on March 2.
> The intent is that whatever comes out of the next week of discussions
> go to the GNSO in Costa Rica, for potential adoption in its meeting
> on Wednesday, allowing the Board to consider adoption on Friday. The
> DT will likely also suggest that if any applications already
> submitted are disqualified due to these changes, that the entire
> application fee be refunded.
> The above discussion can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/FZ7bAQ.
> The Recommendation can be found at
> https://community.icann.org/x/GJ7bAQ. Please add any comments to the
> recommendation page. Due to the tight timing, the earlier that
> comments are made, the more likely they are to be considered.
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
More information about the ALAC