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

Garth Bruen gbruen at knujon.com
Fri Mar 8 14:42:48 UTC 2013


I'll do my best to be on the call, there is a foot of snow AGAIN here

-----Original Message-----
From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rinalia Abdul
Rahim
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 5:36 AM
To: ALAC Working List
Subject: [ALAC] Important - For the 8 March ALAC Meeting on .health
Objections - A view on key questions prior to ALAC vote

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-objecti
on-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+Specific
ation+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+(ALA
C)




More information about the ALAC mailing list