We of the ALAC realize the GNSO, ICANN staff and others have worked hard for consensus on this policy for introduction of new gTLDs. However, the ALAC wants to express discomfort with two of the four areas for objection: Morality and Public Order, and Community Objection. With regard to Morality and Public Order and Community Objection, the ALAC states, with reference to Annex A, 13.b of the ICANN bylaws, such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN.

    • Any ICANN process in which "Morality and Public Order", however defined, is an evaluation criterion, debases the ICANN process.
    • An international organisation cannot be principled on one particular notion of "morality."
    • Human Rights instruments should not be linked to notions of "morality"; human rights are intrinsic, whereas no intrinsic rights to domain name purity exist.
    • Local community standards should not be determined or adjudicated by any international tribunal.
    • Well-established local systems exist to adjudicate questions of morality and public order.
    • Domain names ought to be treated as symbols devoid of meaning; they do not intrinsically possess trademark status.
    • This ICANN process favours dispute resolution companies at the expense of users.
    • ICANN risks straying into areas that are clearly treaty obligations.

If the Board decides not to reject the policy, the ALAC recommends the working group on the implementation process keeps these points in mind, and work to mitigate the negative impact of this area of the policy. ALAC stands ready to work with the Staff on implementation as requested.

Here's the language from the Bylaws (Annex A, 13.b):
" In the event that the Council reached a Supermajority Vote, the Board
shall adopt the policy according to the Council Supermajority Vote
recommendation unless by a vote of more than sixty-six (66%) percent of
the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interests of
the ICANN community or ICANN."

So here, I think the ALAC is arguing that this policy is "not in the
best interests of the ICANN community."

--Wendy

contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2008-06-22 16:47:47 GMT

Yes to Wendy's question.

Carlton

contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2008-06-23 09:50:10 GMT

  • No labels