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

Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch apisan at unam.mx
Thu Jan 23 18:44:37 UTC 2014


thanks for this summary and additonal arguments. 

The opportunity to work forward with lessons learned from evidence seems ripe. It could be in the benefit of the ALAC's image as well.

Alejandro Pisanty

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD

+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

Desde: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl at gih.com]
Enviado el: jueves, 23 de enero de 2014 11:17
Hasta: At-Large Worldwide
CC: ALAC Working List
Asunto: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Reference: ICC Ruling on Objections filed by the ALAC

Dear Evan,

On 23/01/2014 10:01, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> In the past when I tried to get ALAC to convey deep concerns about the
> state of the gTLD program -- concerns that called for radical change to
> improve the public interest component of the expansion -- I got shot down
> by my own community.
> Have a look at this statement I drafted in
> 2011<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=31164161>that
> never made it for ALAC consideration, let alone a vote. Specifically,
> read the comments that together (IMO) induce a chilling effect on calls for
> anything more than superficial change.

At the time, the assertions you made were not fully supported by
documentary evidence of intent and result so we were probably quite
cautious with any allegations.
With time, and as processed in the AG are being implemented, it is
becoming clearer that the Applicant Guidebook contains failings and
flaws that do not serve the public interest. At the time, the very
concept of "public interest" was being challenged, if you remember.

Now of course, all of these events and rulings are providing us with
very valuable feedback for the next round of applications. If ICANN
really is serious about the public interest, they will need to analyse
the rulings and find out what went wrong.

I am particularly concerned with the narrow definition of "community",
"Internet community", "end user community" - or in fact as their lack of
definition. Referring to the ICANN Bylaws, the ALAC's scope should be
defined in a way that the "community' element would be accepted by legal
rulings. Yet the ICC examiner's ruling is that the Community needs to be
clearly delineated (as the AG asks) in such a narrow sense that the ALAC
really does not represent anything or anyone. I am troubled that this
interpretation is *exactly* the interpretation of the applicants who
responded to the ALAC's objection by challenging the ALAC itself.
(whether this is ethical or not, I don't blame them for it, it is
entirely fair game - play the system you're given and make use of its flaws)

The ALAC asked for the possibility to file objections and after much
hard work, it was given that chance and provided with a gun and
ammunition. But was the ammunition all blanks?

Kind regards,

At-Large mailing list
At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

More information about the At-Large mailing list