[NA-Discuss] ALAC Comments on the GAC Scorecard
Avri Doria
avri at ella.com
Mon Mar 28 04:14:54 UTC 2011
I do not get your point.
but i thank you for comparing me and the GNSO to the papacy.
a.
On 27 Mar 2011, at 16:24, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> Dear Avri:
> With respect, I do think you may have miscast my suggestion contained in the
> final paragraph...and in so doing, alter fundamentally what I was saying.
>
> Many processes reverentially agreed by good people give wrong, even
> abhorrent, results. I really was not saying..or even suggesting.... that
> the process - any process - in this context is stopped or reversed purely
> because one disagrees.
>
> My position is really more prosaic; it is to caution that because the idea
> did not prevail for this or any process, it is necessarily wrong and thus a
> candidate to be banished from 'polite' discourse here forward.
>
> Apropos, the tribulations of one Galileo Galilei... it took the Congregation
> for the Doctrine of the Faith until almost the end of the 20th Century to
> acknowledge the fact and truth of heliocentrism.......
>
> Go figure.
>
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> =============================
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 2:55 PM, <na-discuss-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> wrote:
>
>> Send NA-Discuss mailing list submissions to
>> na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> na-discuss-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> na-discuss-owner at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of NA-Discuss digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Re: DRAFT ALAC Response to GAC Scorecard (Carlton Samuels)
>> 2. Re: DRAFT ALAC Response to GAC Scorecard (Avri Doria)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:17:50 -0500
>> From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] DRAFT ALAC Response to GAC Scorecard
>> To: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> Cc: na-discuss-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> Message-ID:
>> <AANLkTi=BHb0AXzmrznEfERfRJFakSsdJacoAGA8XQAdX at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>
>> Dear Colleagues:
>> It is not unusual for a draft of an ALAC Statement to come from the pen and
>> intuit of a few; someone[s] has[ve] to start the work, usually with the
>> understanding that they draw on their own sense of the community's temper
>> and interests.
>>
>> Furthermore, it is not unusual for this said statement to be substantially
>> rephrased, once subject to scrutiny of the At-Large community in general
>> and
>> the full ALAC slate; every draft statement must be circulated for comment
>> and regions may direct their representatives' concern to the entire
>> statement or, specific areas of it.
>>
>> Finally, consensus in this context does not mean we all agree on all
>> matters. Rather it means that there is substantial agreement across the
>> board by a wide cross-section of the At-Large community.
>>
>> For example, I don't particularly like the tabulation format because I am
>> inclined to believe that there is a psychology at work as part of any
>> communique. That aside, I am in favour of emphasizing the issues that are
>> a) very important to the At-Large b) The issues on which we are apart from
>> the protagonists. The wholesale adoption of a format from one protagonist
>> sends a certain message that is, in my view, best avoided. But this is
>> just me and my sensitivities displayed, crafted from my years of active
>> observation in places where I'm actively hobbled by one or other reason but
>> yet a participant in all kinds of political manoeuvres.
>>
>> Reasonable people can agree to disagree, agreeably. But I must insist,
>> even
>> vehemently, that I have long rejected the doctrine of inerrancy, whether
>> propagated for or on behalf of the Bishop of Rome, the ICANN Board or, for
>> that matter, the GNSO.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Carlton Samuels
>>
>> ==============================
>> Carlton A Samuels
>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
>> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
>> =============================
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:00 PM, <
>> na-discuss-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Send NA-Discuss mailing list submissions to
>>> na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>> na-discuss-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>> na-discuss-owner at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>> than "Re: Contents of NA-Discuss digest..."
>>>
>>>
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>> 1. Call for comments on NTIA NOI for the IANA functions -
>>> deadline 23 March (Eric Brunner-Williams)
>>> 2. Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC
>>> scorecard (Antony Van Couvering)
>>> 3. Re: Edits and comments to NARALO/ ALAC position statement on
>>> GAC scorecard (Richard Tindal)
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Message: 2
>>> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:28:35 -0700
>>> From: Antony Van Couvering <avc at avc.vc>
>>> Subject: [NA-Discuss] Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position
>>> statement on GAC scorecard
>>> To: "na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org Discuss"
>>> <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>> Cc: At-Large Worldwide <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>> Message-ID: <30E785AA-D2DB-4C8A-8B29-F3C398B9A762 at avc.vc>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I'm writing in regard to the paper put together by Evan Liebovitch and
>>> others (
>>>
>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/alac+response+to+the+gac+gtld+scorecard
>> ),
>>> which I find to be problematic on many fronts. The paper purports to be
>> a
>>> response by NARALO/ALAC to the GAC scorecard. In reality, however, it is
>>> the point of view of just a few individuals, and in my view seriously
>>> misrepresents the points of view of many ALAC participants. My responses
>>> are not as organized or concise as they might be, but I note the March 25
>>> deadline for comments. I am sure there are errors of grammar and
>> spelling
>>> and in some cases (hopefully very few) of sense.
>>>
>>> (Note: For all intents and purposes, my "constituency" within ICANN is as
>> a
>>> member of NARALO. Although my company wishes to provide services to new
>>> gTLD applicants, it is not a member of the registry constituency
>> (refused)
>>> or the business constituency (refused.) As a North American resident, as
>> a
>>> longtime NARALO commenter and participant, and as an otherwise "homeless"
>>> participant (no stakeholder group will have me) in the ICANN process, I
>>> would like to offer my thoughts and amendments.)
>>>
>>> There are many points in this document that I agree with, and many where
>> I
>>> DISAGREE (in caps throughout for ease of reference). The document is
>>> thorough and well-drafted, but I don't believe it should be put out as
>> is,
>>> for reasons that I lay out below.
>>>
>>> I offer my thoughts with a constructive spirit to try to present the
>> Board
>>> with a document that truly represents consensus and has the broad support
>> of
>>> the ALAC community. Where I have referenced outside materials, I have
>> added
>>> references in brackets and capital letters.
>>>
>>> Antony Van Couvering
>>>
>>> ++++++++++
>>>
>>> I. THIS PAPER SHOULDN'T BE COMMUNICATED WITHOUT CONSENSUS
>>>
>>> This document should not be put as an ALAC document, even with caveats,
>>> until there is some certainty that it approximates the point of view of
>> ALAC
>>> members. From what I have seen -- and I would be happy to be corrected
>> --
>>> the only inputs have come from one NARALO member and one EURALO member,
>> with
>>> a couple of other small comments.
>>>
>>> The document notes:
>>>
>>> "It must be emphasised that, because of the extremely compressed timeline
>>> allowed for this response, ALAC has not received the broad At-Large
>>> community feedback and buy-in that such a statement would normally
>> warrant.
>>> While its authors have solicited comment and ALAC endorsement, this
>>> statement is still subject to review and possible refinement pending
>> broader
>>> At-Large distribution."
>>>
>>> So, as it stands, it is the work of just a few people. I don't see the
>>> value of putting out a position paper that doesn't represent the views of
>>> NARALO or ALAC, in fact it may be harmful. If this position paper
>> doesn't
>>> represent an ALAC consensus, or note the areas of consensus and
>>> non-consensus, then it shouldn't be published.
>>>
>>> One of the areas where ALAC has been very useful (and consistent) is in
>> its
>>> insistence on consensus and transparency. The ALAC statement of Nov 2010
>>> [A] says: "In order to ensure that the entire At-Large community had the
>>> opportunity to review the five statements, and for their perspectives to
>> be
>>> taken into account, the ALAC resolved upon a process of consultation and
>>> amendment for the statements by resolution at its 24th March 2009
>>> teleconference. As a result, the Summit Working Group statement was
>> opened
>>> for public comments by the At-Large community on 1st April, closing on
>> 11th
>>> April. The New GTLD Working Group then amended the statement to
>> incorporate
>>> comments received."
>>>
>>> It strikes me that the above statement is a good method for achieving
>>> consensus, whereas a position authored by just a few, without
>> consultation,
>>> is not.
>>>
>>> II. AREAS OF AGREEMENT / CONCERN / DISAGREEMENT
>>>
>>> The paper makes some good points but also puts forward positions that not
>>> only disagree with the previous hard-fought community consensus, they in
>>> some cases disagree with previous ALAC consensus positions. As the ALAC
>>> said recently [B], "we have serious concerns regarding what we consider
>> to
>>> be backwards steps from areas of community consensus." It is important
>> that
>>> we respect the community consensus, and the Guidebook, which has been
>>> through years of examination, does represent that consensus, even if it
>>> doesn't represent the views of ALAC 100%.
>>>
>>> To the paper itself:
>>>
>>> 1. Section entitled "Thematic Response." The draft paper says: "ALAC has
>>> always had significant challenges regarding both the processes taken to
>>> produce the current Applicant Guidebook (AG) as well as its result." I
>>> don't think this is entirely true. For one thing, one of the loudest
>> voices
>>> to initiate the current process came from the ALAC, stemming directly
>> from
>>> the flawed sponsorship round, of which .XXX is the last progeny. [C]
>>>
>>> In that report, and in subsequent statements, ALAC has emphasized to
>> ICANN
>>> that policy should be the result of consultations and consensus from the
>>> whole community. Given that the guidebook represents close to 3 years
>> of
>>> continual discussion, which has drawn out all the arguments pro and con,
>>> which was initiated by the GNSO and examined closely by every
>> constituency,
>>> advisory committee, and stakeholder group, this process better represents
>>> rough consensus among the entire community than any other ICANN policy
>> ever
>>> proposed.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper purports to have ALAC agreeing
>>> with the GAC to eliminate Module 6, the "morality clause." It claims
>> that
>>> in Mexico City, the ALAC said that "ICANN's obsession with a judicial,
>>> adversarial process provides a barrier to legitimate objections and
>> needless
>>> expense to TLD applicants defending against trivial, unsustainable
>>> objections." I agree that the morality clause is very silly [D], but it
>>> pays to be careful about what we're talking about, and assertions that
>> might
>>> not sustainable when examined. I DISAGREE with the conclusion.
>>>
>>> First, the ALAC said nothing in Mexico City about obsessions by ICANN
>> with
>>> adversarial procedures. [E] For another, that's not what the procedure
>> as
>>> outlined in the Guidebook does. Finally, although the GAC did say that
>> they
>>> wanted to jettison Module 6, that's not where they ended up after meeting
>>> with the Board. Recall that the scorecard has now been the subject of
>>> several intensive meetings between the GAC and the Board, and both sides
>>> have modified their positions. The GAC indicated in Brussels that its
>>> concern relates to requiring governments to use this objection process.
>> The
>>> Board and GAC therefore agreed that it would be consistent with GAC
>> advice
>>> to leave the provision for Limited Public Interest Objections in the
>>> Guidebook for general purposes, but the GAC (as a whole) would not be
>>> obligated to use the objection process in order to give advice. There
>>> should not be the implementation of an entirely new objection procedure
>> that
>>> is a complete turn-around from what !
>>> is already in place, esp. when the GAC and the Board seem to have
>> reached
>>> an accommodation.
>>>
>>> 3. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says: "The public interest is
>>> best served by being reasonably liberal in string acceptance, lest ICANN
>> be
>>> drawn into unfamiliar territory of content-based judgements." I am in
>>> complete agreement with this.
>>>
>>> 4. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says: "The global
>> Internet-using
>>> public interest is badly served in being deprived of a TLD string (and a
>>> potential community focal point) simply because of the perceived insult
>> of a
>>> small number of national governments. The Internet does not exist to only
>>> provide information that pleases everyone." I am in complete agreement
>> with
>>> this.
>>>
>>> 5. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says: "As a replacement we
>>> endorse Scorecard #2.1 with the following conditions: A similar objection
>>> mechanism must exist for non-governmental organisations to launch
>> objections
>>> (either a better-resourced branch of ALAC, a revised version of the
>>> Independent Objector, or something similar)." DISAGREE. I note this
>>> statement calls for complete removal of ONLY the objection procedure
>> based
>>> on ?limited public interest.? The objection procedures that have been
>>> developed based on communty consensus should not be replaced with the GAC
>>> proposal for String Review. The current AGB objection procedure is a
>>> necessary part of the process. We disagree that the ALAC or any other
>> body
>>> should have an objection mechanism that is not agreed upon by the
>> community
>>> or currently defined in the AGB.
>>>
>>> 6. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (point 2): "2. The GAC
>> (and
>>> other bodies able to raise objections) should satisfy the broader
>> community
>>> that objections it will raise -- as a global advisory body -- reflect a
>>> reasonable consensus between members and do not just reflect the whim of
>> a
>>> small number of advocates." I support the concept that any advice from
>> the
>>> GAC must be based on a GAC consensus position. Individual governments
>> are
>>> able to use the public comment period and the objection procedure as a
>> means
>>> of voicing their concern.
>>>
>>> 7. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (points 6 and 7): "All
>>> objection processes must be transparent; specifically, anonymous
>> objections
>>> are explicitly NOT allowed; The Board must have ultimate decision making
>>> authority with the unimpeded right to override objection advice." I am
>> in
>>> complete agreement with these important points.
>>>
>>> 8. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (point 8): "Split
>> decisions
>>> -- in which even rough consensus between the GAC, ALAC and other
>>> stakeholders is impossible -- should weigh in favour of approving the
>> string
>>> under objection. Globally blocking a TLD string on public interest
>> grounds
>>> requires, in our view, consensus that the very existence of the string
>>> damages the public interest." DISAGREE. This particular point
>> highlights
>>> the very reason that there should not be a multi-party review for the
>>> objection procedure. Finding agreement between the GAC/ALAC/Other
>>> stakeholders will impede the objection process. Objections should be
>> filed
>>> by one party per one application, and reviewed by one evaluator.
>>>
>>> 9. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (point 9): "In agreeing
>>> with Scorecard #12, we also believe that it is simple common sense to be
>>> able to alert TLD applicants, as early in the application process as
>>> possible, to potential objections." DISAGREE. I oppose implementing any
>>> new procedure. The current process allows sufficient time for applicants
>> to
>>> mediate with objectors.
>>>
>>> 10. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (point 9): "Applicants,
>>> having entered such good-faith negotiations with potential objectors,
>> should
>>> be able to make minor changes to their applications in order to comply
>> with
>>> a negotiated settlement." I DISAGREE. There should be no changes to an
>>> application after submission; to do so brings up an entire set of
>> difficult
>>> complications -- for instance, should the changed application then be
>>> re-evaluated?
>>>
>>> 11. Theme 2 - trademarks. Generally, I have trouble with the sentence
>>> that says: "We support many of the Scorecard's name-protection measures
>>> which are consistent with the STI consensus recommendations and even a
>> few
>>> that go beyond." Does this mean that the paper supports those GAC
>> measures
>>> that are consistent with the STI, but not others? Or does it mean that
>> it
>>> supports all the GAC measures, many of which are consistent with the STI?
>>> Which are which? In many of the points regarding trademarks, I DISAGREE
>>> with the positions taken by this paper
>>>
>>> In general, I support the guidebook on the following points (with
>> reasons):
>>>
>>> -- I agree with the guidebook, that all trademarks for nations and
>>> supranations shall be accepted into the Trademark Clearinghouse. A date
>> of
>>> acceptance cut-off will not be utilized, as this rewards bad actors from
>>> previous rounds.
>>>
>>> -- There should be a Sunrise OR IP Claims, but not both. Having both is
>>> redundant and circular, and imposes significant costs on registry
>> operators,
>>> which will be passed onto registrants.
>>>
>>> -- Trademarks for IP Claims or Sunrise must be an exact match. Going
>>> beyond exact matches is unworkable and gives ICANN more discretionary
>>> power than any currently accepted TM law might. There shall be no
>>> requirement for post-launch IP Claims.
>>>
>>> -- Registries shall have discretion to restrict eligibility of
>> trademarks
>>> based on objective criteria reasonably related to the purpose of the TLD
>>> such as evidence of use, or class of goods and services (e.g. .shoe could
>>> restrict Sunrise to only trademark registrations that show use in
>>> shoe-related class of goods and services).
>>>
>>> -- There shall be no requirement for post-launch Sunrise TM Claims.
>>>
>>> -- Each trademark registration must be supported by evidence of use in
>>> order to be the basis of a URS complaint
>>>
>>> 12. The paper says, in regard to the URS: "A successful complainant
>> should
>>> have first right of refusal for transfer (#6.2.12)." DISAGREE This goes
>>> against the STI recommendation (as a side note, any time ALAC is going
>>> against community consensus, it should be noted.) In agreement with
>>> IRT/STI, I do not support the right of first refusal transfer of names
>> to
>>> URS complainants. The Uniform Rapid Suspension service is specifically
>>> that, suspension in order to stop the resolution of a domain name that is
>>> harmful or infringing. Any domain transfer should be awarded through the
>>> UDRP.
>>>
>>> 13. Expanding the URS beyond exact matches. DISAGREE. This is very
>> thin
>>> ice, for a few reasons. First, the obvious issues with free speech:
>>> extending the URS beyond exact matches is problematic and impedes freedom
>> of
>>> speech, for example ?wal-martsucks.tld?. Second, many brand names are
>> parts
>>> of common words. Would the huge bank "ING" be able to object to any
>> gerund
>>> or participle containing the letters "ing"?
>>>
>>> 14. The paper says, "In regard to Consumer Protection measures as stated
>> in
>>> Scorecard #6.4 (except for #6.4.4, see below), ALAC strongly agrees with
>> the
>>> GAC positions." DISAGREE. For one thing, it is inappropriate to say
>> that
>>> the ALAC agrees or disagrees with anything absent proper consensus, let
>>> along saying that it "strongly agrees." The GAC position, I feel,
>> comes
>>> from a lack of understanding of what a registry does; this may be true of
>>> anyone who hasn't run a registry, including some ALAC members.
>>>
>>> The GAC's positions 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 are ill-informed of the actual
>> registry
>>> function. The GAC scorecard 4.1 states: ?Amend the "Maintain an abuse
>> point
>>> of contact" paragraph in the DAG to include government agencies which
>>> address consumer protection.?
>>> All registry operators already must provide an abuse point of contact
>>> (within the registry administration staff). The public face of this POC
>> is
>>> an email, abuse at registry.TLD. The contact person then acts upon or
>>> notifies the appropriate party of any required action. The GAC scorecard
>>> seems to call for a listing of government agencies which address consumer
>>> protection which would be published on the registry website. This
>> request
>>> is outside the registry operator's purview. 4.2 states: ?A registry
>>> operator must assist law enforcement, government agencies and agencies
>>> endorsed by governments with their enquiries about abuse complaints
>>> concerning all names registered in the TLD, including taking timely
>> action,
>>> as required, to resolve abuse issues."
>>>
>>> This demand is acceptable with the condition that registry operators
>> should
>>> provide reasonable assistance to law enforcement (both civil and
>> criminal)
>>> consistent with applicable national law. Registry operators should not
>> be
>>> required to provide any proprietary data without a legitimate, legal
>>> request, in order to prevent violation of national privacy laws.
>>>
>>> 15. Theme 3 - Categories. The paper says, "Despite widespread community
>>> request, ICANN has not budged from its long-standing position of only two
>>> categories of applications -- "regular" and "community". This is despite
>> the
>>> fact that GNSO policy on gTLDs allows for categorization, and indeed
>> allows
>>> for differential pricing for different categories (another policy
>>> conveniently overlooked in all versions of the AG to date). The GAC
>>> Scorecard, in our view, simply adds one more strong voice to the need for
>>> categorization beyond what now exists. While arguments have been made --
>> and
>>> should be heeded -- about the concern that categorizatioin mechanisms
>> would
>>> be subverted for financial gain (also known as "gamed"), ALAC holds the
>> view
>>> that such concerns are not sufficient to resist implementation of new
>>> necessary categories. Even if gaming succeeds, in our view it is
>> prefereable
>>> to let a few applications "slip through the cracks" than to deny the
>> public
>>> service and innovation pos!
>>> sible through creating a small number of new categories."
>>>
>>> VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE on nearly every point. Categories are implicity
>>> problematic and despite what the authors have written and what ALAC might
>>> feel on the subject, they have been rejected by the entire community time
>>> and time again. The designation of more categories beyond ?Community?
>> and
>>> ?Generic? raises more problems than it could possibly solve.
>>>
>>> 16. The paper says, "In principle, we endorse the GAC position of wanting
>> a
>>> special status for TLD names which indicate entire sectors which may be
>>> subject to regulation (such as .bank, .pharma, .lawyer). DISAGREE. I
>>> support the Board position and strongly disagree WITH allowing special
>>> status for certain regulated sectors. There are no proprietary rights to
>>> such words. The admission that ?we are unclear about what form? and ?how
>>> ..to verify and enforce? clearly presents the problem of creating Special
>>> Categories. These concerns are dealt with through the 5 processes
>> already
>>> in the Applicant Guidebook, and the position taken by the paper's authors
>>> creates new rights where none existed before -- in contravention of
>> earlier
>>> adopted ALAC positions taken with full ALAC consensus. The GAC proposal
>> is
>>> unnecessary as the underlying concern is already addressed by the
>> following
>>> mechanisms: (a) The GAC objection process (advice); (b) Background
>>> checks/vetting of applicants; (c) !
>>> Community objection procedures; (d) Malicious activity controls; (e) IO
>>> Objections; (f) Public comment; and (g) Board?s ability to reject an
>>> application per Module 5.1.
>>>
>>> 17. Geographic Names -- broadly, I support the position taken by the
>> paper.
>>> It says, "We agree with the ICANN Board response of relying on
>>> pre-determined names." If geographical names beyond country names are to
>> be
>>> protected, they must come from an internationally recognized
>> authoritative
>>> list. I note that this discussion is for protection at the SECOND level.
>>> The GAC should NOT be able to unilaterally designate a word as
>> geographic.
>>> Many geographic names are also generic terms, as aptly described by
>> Board
>>> member Bruce Tonkin's .MARS illustration. Does Mars the planet have a
>>> better right to mars.TLD than Mars the chocolate bar? What if the
>> martians
>>> don't care? This problem is dealt with through the TM clearinghouse, URS
>>> and UDRP procedures.
>>>
>>> 18. Assistance for disadvantaged applicants. This is a very important
>>> topic, and my company has been active in supplying funds to developing
>>> ccTLDs because I believe that the Internet as a whole does better with
>> wide
>>> and diverse participation. The JAS WG has established that ?NEED? is the
>>> primary selective for applicant support. I fully supports the JAS WG
>>> proposal and Board's affirmation of, a matching system where providers of
>>> support and services would be matched with applicants that qualify based
>> on
>>> need. I do NOT support the GAC proposal that applications from a
>> specific
>>> region should be granted greater consideration for support, because this
>> is
>>> not indicative of need, but only of geography.
>>>
>>> 19. Operational readiness. The paper states, "We would note that only
>> the
>>> vested interests within ICANN are pushing for a massive round of
>>> simultaneous applications and approvals. We would advise a more staggered
>>> approach, with a steady timetable of approvals and delegations."
>> DISAGREE.
>>> Apart from the gratuitous editorializing (most ICANN participants have
>> a
>>> vested interest, including many in ALAC), this statement goes squarely
>>> against the GNSO policy and in addition flies in the face of all the
>> facts,
>>> science, and sober representations by technical people in the community.
>>> The root is monitored by everyday by multiple parties all around the
>> world.
>>> Delegation rate scenarios have been modeled and tested. There is no
>>> technical basis for limiting the number of new TLDs to be added to the
>> root.
>>> The Board did note, personnel capacity will limit the possibility of
>>> processing more than 1000 new TLDs/year. As noted by Steve Crocker,
>> adding
>>> 1000 TLDs annually to the root is !
>>> similar to adding a drop of water into a liter-sized bottle.
>>>
>>> 20. Business and Market Considerations. The paper states, "ICANN should
>>> not be in the business of evaluating business models beyond the
>>> sustainability of the plans," and ""public benefit" declarations within
>> TLD
>>> applications will be of dubious benefit, and in any case subject to
>>> substantial modification (and difficulty of enforcement)
>> post-delegation."
>>> Completely agree.
>>>
>>> 21. Cross ownership. The paper states, "the requirement to use ICANN
>>> accredited registrars and to not self-distribute could jeopardize TLDs
>> that
>>> will have a specific regional focus or those using less common scripts or
>>> languages" and "There should be viable ways for single registrant TLDs to
>>> operate effectively." Completely agree.
>>>
>>> 22. Due diligence on applicants. I think the Board and the GAC actually
>>> agree on this topic, although the GAC wants to have "extra" checks that
>> they
>>> are however unable to define. I support that ICANN should make screening
>> as
>>> effective as possible. ICANN is willing to meet with law enforcement and
>>> other experts to ensure that all available expertise is focused on this
>>> issue. (ICANN notes however that there is no consistent definition of
>>> criminal behavior across multiple jurisdictions, and the existing
>> proposed
>>> Applicant Guidebook consciously targets "crimes of trust".) I agree with
>>> ALAC that drug crimes seem completely off-topic in this context.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> References:
>>>
>>> [A]
>> http://www.atlarge.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19apr09-en.htm
>>> [B]
>>>
>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Additional+ALAC+Statement+on+Draft+Final+Applicant+Guidebook
>>> [C] ALAC position on 2003 sponsored TLDs.
>>> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/gtld-com/Arc00/msg00039.html
>>> [D] Blog post by Antony Van Couvering.
>>> http://www.namesatwork.com/blog/2008/10/30/icanns-morality-memo
>>> [E] "Statement on New gTLDs Applications Process v2,"
>>>
>> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?statement_on_new_gtlds_applications_process_v2_al_alac_st_0309_3_en
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 3
>>> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:59:40 -0700
>>> From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal at me.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Edits and comments to NARALO/ ALAC position
>>> statement on GAC scorecard
>>> To: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> Message-ID: <93B4629C-7DC1-4A6A-BCEB-8107369E4515 at me.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
>>>
>>>
>>> It would be good to see a substantive discussion of the many points
>> raised
>>> by Antony in his recent post - most of which I agree with.
>>>
>>> There doesn't seem to be a broad ALAC dialogue on this very important
>>> report. Some of the items in the report do not appear logical, and
>> other
>>> items
>>> seem to represent changes in GNSO policy recommendations.
>>>
>>> If accepted, the report's recommendations will significantly delay new
>> TLDs
>>> as extensive new processes and language will have to be developed for the
>>> Applicant Guidebook.
>>> A prime example is the implementation of a fair mechanism to introduce
>> TLDs
>>> in limited rounds. In 2 years discussion of that topic I have not yet
>> heard
>>> an implementation proposal that wouldn't favor well funded,
>> technologically
>>> savvy or politically connected applicants.
>>>
>>> With such limited input does this report truly represent the ALAC's
>>> position?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Richard Tindal
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 15:27:17 -0400
>> From: Avri Doria <avri at ella.com>
>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] DRAFT ALAC Response to GAC Scorecard
>> To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>> Message-ID: <B76885D7-7889-4644-AF77-BAF257CE1F71 at ella.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>
>>
>> On 27 Mar 2011, at 14:17, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>>
>>> Reasonable people can agree to disagree, agreeably. But I must insist,
>> even
>>> vehemently, that I have long rejected the doctrine of inerrancy, whether
>>> propagated for or on behalf of the Bishop of Rome, the ICANN Board or,
>> for
>>> that matter, the GNSO.
>>
>>
>> It is not a doctrine of inerrancy and to put it that way is quite
>> dismissive.
>>
>> There was a process, one that many At-large members participated in.
>> This process had an outcome that the Board then approved.
>> That is the foundation on which this program is being created,
>> and the time for criticizing that outcome that is long long past.
>>
>> To constantly go back and try to change things that you did not prevail on
>> several years ago or sometimes did not even a viewpoint on, and to use that
>> as a way to put a halt to the beginning of the new gTLD program is indeed a
>> problem and is something that I find a bit dubious.
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NA-Discuss mailing list
>> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>>
>>
>> End of NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 53, Issue 28
>> ******************************************
>>
> ------
> 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
> ------
>
More information about the NA-Discuss
mailing list