[ALAC] Important - For the 8 March ALAC Meeting on .health Objections - A view on key questions prior to ALAC vote

[Eduardo Diaz]

Rinalia:

What are your thoughts about the "No" vote from APRALO for the .jiankang
(.健康) which was caveated by their submitted PIC which you are suggesting
not to consider during the ALAC discussions? In other words, will the "No"
vote will change to a "Yes" vote if the PIC is not to be considered at the
end?

Thanks.

-ed

On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <
rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear ALAC Colleagues,
>
> In anticipation of the ALAC Teleconference scheduled for Friday 8th March
> 2013 at 1800 UTC to consider "RALO Advice Regarding Objection Statements on
> the *.health* String Applications," I am sharing my views and position
> below as I am unsure if I would be sufficiently lucid to discuss such an
> important issue at 2am my time.
>
> I anticipate 2 important questions will be raised for discussion (prior to
> the ALAC vote on whether or not to advance the objections against the 4
> applications for “.health” as per regional advice supported by 3/5 RALOs):
>
> 1) Does the ALAC have standing to assert and file community objections?  -
> This question has been raised by parties who wish to question the
> legitimacy of the ALAC in terms of our role in the objection process.
>
> 2) Should the ALAC consider the submitted Public Interest Commitments (PIC)
> by the applicants in making its decision (i.e., vote)?
>
> *
> On Question 1: Does the ALAC have standing to assert and file community
> objections?*
>
> In my view, the ALAC absolutely has standing to assert and file community
> objections.  The role of the ALAC is to represent the interests of
> individual Internet users (see ICANN Bylaws).  Our community is thus the
> “community of Internet users” around the world and within this community
> are:
>
> a)    Individual Internet users who are organized and involved formally in
> the ICANN system (eg., ALSes);
>
> b)    Individual Internet users who are organized, but not formally
> involved in the ICANN system.
>
> c)    Individual Internet users who are not organized in specific groups
> and are not formally involved in the ICANN system.
>
>
>
> All of these people fall within the bounds of our "community" and we are
> mandated to represent their interests.  The ALAC structure itself is
> designed to take into account this diversity in our community.  We have
> ALAC members who are elected by each region to represent the collective ALS
> interests and we have ALAC members like myself, who are appointed by the
> ICANN Nominating Committee, who are independent of ALSes.  The community
> that I represent (apart from my adopted home of APRALO) comprises those who
> are not formally represented in the ICANN system and these users (whether
> organized or not) may be focused on a variety of issue interest such as
> health, child safety, etc.
>
> In terms of whether or not the ALAC has standing to object on behalf of
> IMIA.  IMIA falls under the category of individual Internet users who are
> organized, but not formally involved in ICANN.  Groups like IMIA can freely
> enter the ICANN system when their interests are affected and the system is
> flexible enough to accommodate that via the ALAC and its "community", which
> is a strength.
>
>
>
>
> *On Question 2: Should the ALAC consider the submitted Public Interest
> Commitments (PIC) by the applicants in making its decision (i.e., vote)?***
>
>
>
> Although I am inclined to view the submission of PICs by applicants as
> generally a positive sign), I am hesitant to consider them in my
> decision-making/vote on the objections at this point in time.  My reasons
> are as follows:
>
>
>
> 1.     The timeline for the At-Large objections process never factored the
> PICs process (see
>
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31178691/alac-facts-objection-final.pdf
> ).  RALOs did not have sufficient time to consider them in their vote and
> the ALAC does not have sufficient time to review carefully the contents of
> each PIC against the original applications before voting.
>
>
>
> 2.     The PICs currently have significant weaknesses: a) enforceability –
> the PICSDRP framework currently does not exist and has yet to be developed
> where the applicants expect that it will be developed via “consensus
> policy,” which could swing in their favor; and b) the commitments are
> self-defined by the applicants where “the registry operator may choose not
> to nominate any element of their application that are PICs, or nominate
> only those elements of the application that the registry operator wants
> considered as a commitment.”  The PICs thus may contain crucial gaps in
> terms of public interest and end user protection.  For an elaboration of
> these concerns, see draft statement on “At-Large Revised New gTLD Registry
> Agreement Including Additional Public Interest Commitments Specification”
> by Holly Raiche (
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Revised+New+gTLD+Registry+Agreement+Including+Additional+Public+Interest+Commitments+Specification+Workspace
> ).  Holly has also highlighted that ICANN currently has no oversight in
> addressing these gaps based on the existing arrangements.
>
>
>
> Based on the above, I am inclined to not consider the PICs at this point in
> time.  When the PICs come under proper review, the ALAC will have an
> opportunity to comment.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Rinalia
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>



-- 
*NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or
subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named
addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use,
disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by
mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.