[At-Large] Notice of Motion: update to ALAC advice on gTLDs

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

Indeed Adam  =>  the words  "We agree with and support the expedient
introduction of new gTLDs,
especially those offering support for IDNs.... .... ... ."  from our
 Mexico 2009 At-Large Summit Declaration and similar words have integral in
ALAC Statements,  Notes, Interventions, Reports Comments (to various Calls
for Public Comments and in other Fora) over and over again  since Interim
ALAC  days  in 2003 => a point perhaps also worth noting  by the ALAC
Members  as they debate this "issue"

Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



On 19 December 2011 22:23, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> Evan,
>
> You seem to be of the opinion that the At Large's Mexico statement's
> pretty important, the section of the Mexico Declaration addressing
> new gTLD opens with the following:
>
> "We agree with and support the expedient introduction of new gTLDs,
> especially those offering support for IDNs. In fact, we believe that
> a number of components of the proposed policy present unnecessary
> barriers to entry for the broadest possible variety of gTLD
> applicants."
>
> Seems you are coming close to re-writing history. The At Large
> statement supported the "broadest possible variety of gTLD
> applicants".  Your final "whereas" clause not justified.   The Mexico
> document also refers to "substantial pent-up demand for new gTLDs"
> and "We do NOT believe in an interim third round with an arbitrarily
> limited number of applications as a "trial run"" (emphasis in the
> original). This also seems contrary to your penultimate whereas
> clause.
>
> Many of the issues mentioned in the Mexico declaration have been
> addressed, perhaps not to everyone's full satisfaction, but there's
> been a lot of work done, very publicly with ALAC's participation (for
> example ALAC commented on the GAC scorecard, how did that work out?
> GAC got about 80/90%, ALAC?)  However, importantly the issue of fees
> has not been well addressed.  Might also mention a less than perfect
> outreach process in this regard (Mike Silber's comments in Dakar
> helpful.)
>
> Perhaps the third whereas about law enforcement could be split off as
> a separate statement, the At Large's views more fully explained and
> re-submitted as a separate statement?
>
> Public interest.  Please identify the specific public interest issues
> that must be addressed.
>
> When is the ALAC's January call (can't see it on the calender), the
> application process opens on January 12th, in 23 days. After all the
> opportunities At Large has had to comment I think it would be a grave
> mistake to call for suspension of the new gTLD process.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> >Hello,
> >
> >This message is to announce my intention to move this motion at the
> >*JANUARY* ALAC meeting.
> >
> >This is being done in order to enable discussion to take place -- within
> >ALAC, its gTLD working group, and the RALOs -- to determine the response
> to
> >this issue which has been IMO simmering throughout the At-Large community.
> >
> >We are told by many (and officially by ICANN) that the program is set and
> >we should stop complaining, But to refuse to express the point of view of
> >the public interest within ICANN -- even if it is contrary to the
> >predominant wisdom -- if to fail at the very basics of At-Large's
> >bylaw-mandated role.
> >
> >Please distribute this to the four RALO mailing lists where I do not have
> >posting rights, and translate if possible.
> >
> >- Evan
> >
> >
> >
>
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >WHEREAS end-users and governments have only been invited to participate in
> >the new gTLD program long after its foundation principles were determined;
> >
> >WHEREAS most of the problems identified by the ALAC in its Mexico City
> >Summit declaration related to the new-gTLD program have not been
> >satisfactorily addressed and indeed some have worsened;
> >
> >WHEREAS numerous complaints from governments, intergovernmental
> >organizations and other bodies have indicated that law enforcement and
> >public-protection measures in the current design of the gTLD program are
> >insufficient;
> >
> >WHEREAS the ICANN Board, without explanation, has refused the
> >cross-community endorsement of the Joint Applicant Support Working Group
> >recommendations to reduce costs of new gTLD in developing economies
> >independent of any fixed fund;
> >
> >WHEREAS the absence of a staggered release schedule or a fixed timetable
> >for future rounds severely inhibits ICANN's ability to correct mistakes in
> >the proposed application round;
> >
> >and
> >
> >WHEREAS ICANN has still not convincingly demonstrated the end-user need or
> >benefit of a simultaneous launch of hundreds of new TLDs;
> >
> >RESOLVED THAT the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) convey to the ICANN
> >Board and community the dissatisfaction of At-Large with the new gTLD
> >program in its current form, and explicitly advises that its
> implementation
> >would be harmful to the public interest. We request that implementation of
> >the program be suspended until necessary public-interest modifications are
> >implemented.
> >_______________________________________________
> >At-Large mailing list
> >At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >
> >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>