[ALAC] Letter from Steve Crocker to GAC Chair regarding GNSO/GAC role in gTLD policy development

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Nov 4 16:42:15 UTC 2014


Evan,

I put the substance of what the GAC is asking for related to the Red 
Cross in a VERY different category from their advice that the topic 
should not be subject to a policy development process.

I hope that the GNSO ultimately adopts a policy equivalent to what 
the GAC is asking, and I hope that our GNSO Liaison will act as a 
voice of reason in the GNSO Council encouraging such action. Further, 
if they do not, I would hope the Board to reject their advice, 
because there is no doubt in my mind that what is being asked for is 
both reasonable and important.

Sadly (from my not-so-humble point of view), I have seen other cases 
where the GAC takes a position that I do not support in the same 
wholehearted manner as I do the advice on the Red Cross national 
names. And I would hope that the voice of reason would prevail in 
those cases with the GAC NOT getting its way. For that we need 
reasonable processes, checks and balances.

Alan



At 04/11/2014 10:25 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>"Dear governments of the world,
>
>Thank you for your interest in ICANN. Your advice is always welcome, when
>it is in agreement with our industry compact between domain buyers and
>sellers.
>
>However, even when the public interest, international treaty and global
>governmental consensus rarely converge to assert an issue, the
>aforementioned industry compact is still owed the right to delay, dilute
>and (should it wish) destroy such initiative within our internal
>procedures. This is what we call 'multi-stakeholderism'.
>
>Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
>
>Sincerely, ICANN."
>
>Opposing the protection of Red Cross names is simply indefensible outside
>the ICANN bubble. It makes ICANN a justifiable target of ridicule ... and
>disruption.
>
>The GAC has already made reasonable compromise, backing away from asserting
>Olympic and NGO name protection that did not have as much public interest
>rationale or support. What remains is an easily understood, common sense
>request that ICANN cannot brush aside without consequence.
>
>ICANN's implementation of multi stakeholder processes deliberately designed
>a system in which the industry makes policy, and the public interest
>(through the GAC and ALAC) "advise" after the fact. Slow change has
>happened, but in many respects (such as the current round of gTLDs), the
>damage has been done and the only actions left are remedial rather than
>prevention.
>
>And even those remedial efforts are severely impeded, as At Large has seen
>first hand; our objection processes and Applicant Support initiatives have
>clearly failed, despite the community's best good-faith efforts.
>
>The ALAC has a clear and critical interest in supporting the GAC in this
>matter.
>_______________________________________________
>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