[ALAC] Urgent - ALAC Statements on Community Applications

Rinalia Abdul Rahim rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
Tue Aug 6 01:11:26 UTC 2013

Hi Carlton.

Thanks for the input. "Strict eligibility" was another way of citing "high
threshold" which was contained in the GAC Durban communiqae.  An option is
to proceed without citing reasons and just point to effect.

On revenue neutrality - I agree that the applications are generally not
revenue neutral though I have seen one that says it will strive to provide
services at cost as much as possible with no intention of price escalation
beyond inflation. That was based on a small sample scan. There may be
others, but it requires ploughing through about 650 applications.

Emphasis on "community services over revenue maximizing" was a suggestion
from Evan. I do think that it is essentially correct, but if ALAC
colleagues feel that we should not touch on revenue, then the option is to
stop at emphasis on community services.

p.s. what is a claque?

Best regards,


On Aug 6, 2013 6:14 AM, "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would be wary of fingering 'strict eligibility criteria' as cause.  This
> may be construed as a plea for an 'elastic' arrangement that enables
> gaming.  Buy yourself a claque and you're in!!!
> I am also wary of a misreading that could equate de facto  'community'
> applications as 'revenue neutral' applications.  That case is not made.
> -Carlton
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> =============================
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <
> rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear ALAC Colleagues,
>> There are urgent emerging issues related to the new gTLD string contention
>> that the EXCOMM believes warrant an ALAC intervention.  With the support
>> of
>> Evan, I have taken the liberty of drafting an ALAC response for your
>> immediate input.  We need to submit the statements by the second week of
>> August (latest) to have the possibility of an ICANN response before
>> community priority evaluation begins.  Please do try your best to provide
>> comments for improvements or endorsements if you like the text/intent via
>> the wiki page indicated by Thursday (8 August 2013).
>> Policy Development wiki page links and statement text pasted below for
>> your
>> quick review.  If the wiki link is not active, kindly copy and paste the
>> URL for activation.
>> Thank you!
>> Best regards,
>> Rinalia
>> *1. ALAC Statement on Preferential Treatment for Community Applications in
>> String Contention*
>> WIKI page for your comments:
>> The ALAC notes that due to strict eligibility criteria, some of the new
>> gTLD applications intended for communities and with wide public/grassroots
>> support were not submitted as community applications.  These applications
>> are currently in contention with those that are fully commercial (i.e.,
>> driven purely by financial gain).
>> We firmly believe that applications with demonstrable support, appropriate
>> safeguards and emphasis on community service over revenue maximization
>> should be accorded preferential treatment in the new gTLD string
>> contention
>> resolution process.  We thus support the position of the Governmental
>> Advisory Committee (GAC) as per the GAC Communiqué dated 18 July 2013 and
>> call on ICANN to review all 688 applications currently in contention and
>> provide preferential treatment to applications that meet the specification
>> described above.
>> END
>> *2. ALAC Statement on Community Expertise in Community Priority
>> Evaluation*
>> WIKI page for your comments:
>> The ALAC has concerns about the sufficiency of community expertise in
>> panels that evaluate new gTLD community applications in string contention
>> processes.
>> We believe that the evaluations have significant implications for
>> community
>> applications and require sufficient and relevant community-related
>> expertise in panels that evaluate the applications.  In providing this
>> advice we draw from the learning provided by the failure of the new gTLD
>> Applicant Support Program.
>> *Community Priority Evaluation *
>> Module 4 of the Applicant Guidebook specifies that the Community Priority
>> Evaluation is applicable only for community-based applicants.  The
>> evaluation is an independent analysis (i.e., not dependent on prior
>> applicant review results) and that any community application that passes
>> the Evaluation will “eliminate all directly contending standard
>> applications, regardless of how well qualified the latter may be.”
>> Furthermore, community applications that fail the Evaluation will proceed
>> into auction involving all contending parties where they may be at a
>> disadvantage against fully commercial applications.
>> As per the new gTLD Program Timeline indicated at
>> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/timelines, we note that the
>> string contention resolution process will begin in September 2013.  We
>> also
>> note that the Economist Intelligence Unit and InterConnect Communications
>> have been appointed as service providers for the Community Priority
>> Evaluation Panel (see new gTLD Program Update at the ICANN Dakar Meeting
>> in
>> 2011).
>> We have concerns that these entities may have a natural familiarity and
>> pre-disposition toward business that may discriminate against applications
>> emphasizing community service over revenue-maximization.
>> The ALAC thus calls for community-related expertise in the Community
>> Priority Evaluation Panel and stands ready to offer appropriate and
>> un-conflicted ICANN community volunteers to serve as panel members or
>> advisors.
>> END
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> ALAC Working Wiki:
>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

More information about the ALAC mailing list