[NA-Discuss] [New gTLD RG] IMPORTANT: At-Large Objection Statements posted for RALO review - deadline for RALO advice to ALAC is March 5 2013

Wed Feb 27 16:53:48 UTC 2013

Randy, 

I can appreciate your frustration, but Dev has been following the letter of
the process which is akin to threading a needle. Has the system been gamed?
I'm not sure the was a game to begin with if you get my meaning. 

-Garth

From: newgtldrg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:newgtldrg-bounces at icann.org] On
Behalf Of RJ Glass
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:25 PM
To: ICANN At-Large Staff; na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Cc: New gTLD Review Group (newgtldrg at atlarge-lists.icann.org);
gtld-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Subject: Re: [New gTLD RG] [NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: At-Large Objection
Statements posted for RALO review - deadline for RALO advice to ALAC is
March 5 2013

Dev, if you could be so kind, I would submit the following to public record:

It is my opinion, based on the community at-large, that the overall
direction being undertaken is not conducive to the 'core values' as stated
in Section 2 of ICANN's bylaws.

In reviewing the wiki pages (which should not be considered all-inclusive),
along with formal statements submitted to the President and Board of ICANN,
which have been distributed to the community as well, it is clear that the
system is being 'GAMED' at this point - if not from the very start.

To say that there have been no community objections for ANY of the 4 listed
TLD applications below, having not met some criteria for 'Community
Objection Grounds' is not responsible of the At-Large community to allow.
Each of these 4 TLDs have had a number of objections.  To say that these
objections are unwarranted based on said criteria is again not acting
responsibly toward the At-Large community.

For the unititiated, the Community Objection Grounds are stated as follows
(while not including the lentgthy details of the "tests" of: Community,
Substantial Opposition, Targeting, Detriment for sake of space and time):

*	The community invoked by the objector is a clearly delineated
community; and
*	Community opposition to the application is substantial; and
*	There is a strong association between the community invoked and the
applied-for gTLD string; and 
*	The application creates a likelihood of material detriment to the
rights or legitimate interests of a significant portion of the community to
which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted.

Therefore, I would urge NARALO to submit objections to each of the 4 TLDs
under the 'Community Objection Grounds' based on the inherent responsibility
of At-Large to represent the voice of those who do object, based on the
terms may have been stated by those objectors.  

If we are to represent a valid voice as a RALO, we must also recognize that
'meeting the criteria established' does not consider the magnitude of the
bylaws of either ICANN itself nor the bylaws of NARALO.  

Cordially submitted,

RJGlass

A at L

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------

Members of the new gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG) considered the comments
from the At-Large community as of February 8 2013 regarding the
applications for

.amazon ( <https://community.icann.org/x/dAFlAg>
https://community.icann.org/x/dAFlAg),
.patagonia ( <https://community.icann.org/x/fgFlAg>
https://community.icann.org/x/fgFlAg)
.health ( <https://community.icann.org/x/0wZlAg>
https://community.icann.org/x/0wZlAg)
.nyc ( <https://community.icann.org/x/CYJEAg>
https://community.icann.org/x/CYJEAg)

None of the applications raised any limited public interest concerns
( <https://community.icann.org/x/QAkQAg>
https://community.icann.org/x/QAkQAg)

gTLD RG members ranked each factor of the four tests for community
objection grounds (( <https://community.icann.org/x/QgkQAg>
https://community.icann.org/x/QgkQAg)
based on the comments and discussions. Based on these rankings, the
following are the decisions by the gTLD RG:

Re: .amazon ( <https://community.icann.org/x/dAFlAg>
https://community.icann.org/x/dAFlAg):
There will be no drafting of an objection statement on community
grounds  for the application for .amazon
given that the "detriment" test for community objection grounds was not
passed.

Re: .patagonia ( <https://community.icann.org/x/fgFlAg>
https://community.icann.org/x/fgFlAg)
There will be no drafting of an objection statement on community
grounds for the application for .patagonia given that
the "targeting" and "detriment" tests for community objection grounds
were not passed.

Re: .health ( <https://community.icann.org/x/0wZlAg>
https://community.icann.org/x/0wZlAg)
Objection statements on community grounds will be drafted for the
applications for .health given that the four tests for community
objection
grounds were passed. The gTLD RG will attempt to put together the
objection statements to the applications for .health in time
for RALO review around 22 February 2013.

Re: .nyc
There will be no drafting of an objection statement on community
grounds for the application for .nyc given the comments received as on
February 8 2013 indicated that the initial objection concerns raised
were being addressed.
A late comment sent to the gTLD RG on 11 February 2013 was treated by
the gTLD RG as being submitted too late for consideration.

Kind Regards,

Dev Anand Teelucksingh
gTLD RG chair

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------

From: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff at atlarge.icann.org>
To: "afri-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org"
<afri-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>;
"apac-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org"
<apac-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>;
"euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org"
<euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>;
"lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org"
<lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org>;
"na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org> 
Cc: "New gTLD Review Group (newgtldrg at atlarge-lists.icann.org)"
<newgtldrg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; ICANN At-Large Staff
<staff at atlarge.icann.org>; "gtld-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org"
<gtld-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:06 PM
Subject: [NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: At-Large Objection Statements posted for
RALO review - deadline for RALO advice to ALAC is March 5 2013

Dear All,

Please see an important message being sent on behalf of Dev Anand
Teelucksingh, Chair of the At-Large new gTLD Review Group:

**
Dear All,

As per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new gTLD application,
(see one page PDF at http://bit.ly/how-ALAC-files-objection-to-new-gTLD ),
the new gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG) have posted objection statements on
community grounds to 5 new gTLD applications for Regional At-Large
Organisation (RALO) review and advice to the ALAC.

The gTLD RG drafted the statements based on the outcomes of its review and
discussion of comments received by February 8, 2013 (see
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/2013q1/009493.html)

All of the objection statements are on community objection grounds. The
community objection grounds page at https://community.icann.org/x/QgkQAg
lists four tests that would enable the Dispute Resolution Service Provider
hearing the objection to determine whether there is substantial opposition
from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be
targeted. Note also that ALL four tests must be met for the objection to
prevail.

The 5 applications and objection statements, including the comments received
by the gTLD RG on the applications can be found on the workspace at
https://community.icann.org/x/soxwAg with 5 separate wiki pages for each new
gTLD application, the objection statement and the comments received by the
gTLD RG. Members of At-Large are invited to discuss and post questions or
comments on these wiki pages.

All RALOs must review EACH of the 5 gTLD applications and the associated
information (objection statement, comments) on the wiki pages and decide if
the objection statement drafted  by the gTLD RG group supports the criterion
for community objection.

The RALO cannot modify any of the 5 objection statements, but must advise
the ALAC as to whether the RALO EITHER:
1) supports the objection statement being filed by the ALAC against the new
gTLD application OR
2) NOT support the objection statement being filed by the ALAC against the
new gTLD application.

This advice for each of the 5 objection statements must be sent to the ALAC
by March 5, 2013, 23:59 UTC so that the ALAC can review the RALO advice
before the end of the objection period on March 13, 2013.

A conference call is tentatively scheduled on Thursday, February 28, 2013
(exact time will be confirmed by At-Large Staff) is being planned for RALO
officers with the gTLD RG members to provide an overview of the process and
to answer any questions they may have as to what  is expected by the RALOs
as per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new
gTLD application. At-Large members are welcome to attend this call.

Kind regards,
Dev Anand Teelucksingh

**

Regards,

Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie
Peregrine, and Julia Charvolen
ICANN Policy Staff in support of the ALAC
E-mail: staff at atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org>

------
NA-Discuss mailing list
NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
------