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

Fri Mar 8 16:45:46 UTC 2013

Dear Ed,

Irrespective of the weaknesses of the PIC, it is important that a PIC is
submitted by applicants as a means of holding them accountable.  What
exists now is a start, something for the ALAC to work on in collaboration
with the GAC in making sure that the PICs become enforceable and
comprehensive.

The APRALO regional advice was that it votes NO to the objection on .jiankang
(.健康) provided that Stable Tone submits a PIC.  Stable Tone has done that.  To
me, this satisfies that precondition.   So the APRALO vote would not
change.

Best regards,

Rinalia

On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Eduardo Diaz
<eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com>wrote:

> Evan:
>
> I know the fact but I would like to know the thinking process here. The
> suggestion by Rinalia is geared to all in ALAC and will be weighted as part
> of our deliberations for the rest of the objections. In my personal case I
> deferred to APRALO on their IDN string decision which was "No" with the
> caveat. If they had indicated YES, I would have indicated YES too. I do not
> know if the APRALO vote would have had the same effect in others too.
>
> -ed
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The question is not really relevant anymore. The IDN objection is now
>> dead (as far as the ALAC process is concerned) because it did not get the
>> support of three regions. Only the four Latin string objections are still
>> being considered.
>>
>> - Evan (via mobile)
>> On 2013-03-08 10:25 AM, "Eduardo Diaz" <eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>