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

[Avri Doria]

Hi Rinalia,

In terms of At-Large's scope:  I think that the idea of ALAC representing all of At-Large and by virtue of that all Internet users is wonderfully aspirational.  To claim that ALAC deserves such a role already is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.  I beleive that one day it might deserve such a role, but it has a long way to go before it becomes representative of the Global Internet User.

In terms of your arguments for the Objection:  You make a very good case for a Limited Public Interest Objection, which is unquestionably within ALAC's prerogatives.  The case for a community objection on the other really seems to be missing.

avri

On 8 Mar 2013, at 05:35, Rinalia Abdul Rahim 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)
>