[At-Large] [ALAC] Reference: ICC Ruling on Objections filed by the ALAC

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Thu Jan 23 16:58:03 UTC 2014

Dear Carlton,

my answers inline:

On 23/01/2014 15:31, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> I quoted his writings extensively because my own reading and interpretation
> of the AGB and after extensive conversations and debates with Committee
> chair Dev Anand Teelucksingh - who, other than Alan Greenberg is possibly
> the most thoughtful and best researcher I know in At-Large - I was
> convinced that:
> 1. There were serious disconnects in the objection framework offered in the
> 2. The barrier to entry in the process in form of a fee was intended as a
> 'chilling effect'; plainly, they were unwanted
> 3. I doubted the cover of the ALAC as sponsored community objector gave
> equal protection
> 4. The process instituted to determine 'community standing' was not fit and
> MAY NOT be.
> 4. The PICs were an afterthought, a Wile E. Coyote scheme and in context of
> an entity who disavows a regulatory function, hardly enforceable on an
> business

I cannot contradict you on these points, Carlton. It is clear that the
examiner has considered the objection is their strictest form relating
them directly to the Applicant Guidebook. But I consider that the ICANN
Bylaws overrule the Applicant Guidebook and therefore the overarching
theme should have been the Public Interest, which the examiner failed to
take into account. That said, this may have not been the mission
assigned to it and whilst I do not have the time to spend analysing this
in detail (I leave it to our excellent analysts), the ruling has the
merit to point out the failings of the Applicant Guidebook in
safeguarding the public interest. Having no proof of intent, I cannot
comment on whether these failings were wanted or a result of incompetence.

Kind regards,


More information about the At-Large mailing list