FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED
The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.
FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED
The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins.
Summary of ALAC Responses to the Work Track 3 Questions
The recommendation on string confusion is one that must be enhanced. Problems related to singular and plural versions of related strings must be addressed, and for strings that are inherently confusing in their own right, delegation could be considered (3.1.1). The implementation of the recommendations relating to string confusion was problematic, especially the potential for different rules for the same pairs of strings. A recent report looking at defensive registrations implied that legal rights protections were not sufficient. The entire issue of community applications and objections needs careful consideration and review (3.1.2). While an independent objector (IO) is warranted, allegations of lack of objectivity identified in the first round must be addressed, to ensure that the IO is beyond reproach (3.1.6). With regards to GAC Advice procedures, we recommend that their advice in relation to gTLDs includes rationales (3.1.11)
With regards to policy/implementation guidance or implementation, no change is required if the only benefit of community TLD is in relation to objections and priority. However the ALAC supports other advantages such as preferential pricing (but at the application and operation levels) and if that is adopted, all community applications should be examined (3.3.1). The ALAC would agree that the CPE process did not provide consistency and predictability in the 2012 round and suggest .kids and .gay as two such examples (3.3.2). However, the CPE is still considered a reasonable process if properly implemented and when the criteria is not set purely to limit gaming (3.3.3).
As noted in 3.1.1, for consistency and predictability, singular and plural needs to be considered, and mitigation policies should be a factor as well (3.4.1). User confusion must be considered as a high priority (3.4.3). We agree that the approach to string similarity in gTLDs should be harmonised with ccTLDs (3.4.2). Private auctions should not be held as they could lead to speculative applications (3.4.6). We believe that along with the new review mechanisms which will be implemented as a result of the ICANN Accountability measure, existing accountability mechanisms will be adequate avenues to address issues encountered in the new gTLD programme.(3.5.1) However, we do not have a response with regards to what appeal process might be appropriate (3.5.2).
Please reference the "Work Track 3 Questions" document above for detailed questions asked
| Work Track 3 Question # | Comment from Alan Greenberg |
|---|---|
| 3.1 Objections (Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Vz2AAw) | |
| 3.1.1 Do you think that the policy recommendations (Recommendations 2, 3, 6, and 20) require any modifications? If so, what would you suggest? | The recommendation on string confusion is one that must be enhanced. Singular and plural versions of related strings proved to be problematic in the first round and must be addressed this time. Such provision should not be limited to just the addition of an S but should be more generalized as suggested in a recent Registry SG document. That being said, as discussed in relation the ccNSO EPSRP document. For strings that are inherently confusing in their own right, but for which STRONG irrevocable policies mitigating against confusion in full domain names, delegation could be considered. |
| 3.1.2 Do you believe that those recommendations (which led to the establishment of the String Confusion, Legal Rights, Limited Public Interest, and Community Objections grounds) were implemented effectively and in the spirit of the original policy recommendations? If no, please provide examples. | No. String confusion proved to be problematic and the potential for differing rulings on the same pairs of strings was particularly problematic. A recent report looking at defensive registrations may imply that legal rights protections were not sufficient. The entire issue of community applications and objections needs careful consideration and review. |
| 3.1.3 Do you believe there were any issues with standing requirements as defined in the Applicant Guidebook (AGB), or as carried out by the providers? Please explain. | No. |
| 3.1.4 Do you believe there is evidence of decisions made by objection dispute panels that were inconsistent with other similar objections, the original policy recommendations, and/or the AGB? Please explain. | No comment offered. |
| 3.1.5 Are you aware of any instances where any party or parties attempted to ‘game’ the Objection procedures in the 2012 round? If so, please provide examples and any evidence you may have available. | No comment offered. |
| 3.1.6 Do you believe that the use of an Independent Objector (IO) is warranted in future application processes? If not, then why? If yes, then would you propose any restrictions or modifications be placed on the IO in future rounds? | The use of an IO is still warranted. However there were allegations of lack of objectivity in the first round and steps must be taken to ensure that the IO is beyond reproach. |
| 3.1.7 Do you believe that parties to disputes should be able to choose between 1 and 3 member panels and should the costs of objections reflect that choice? | No comment offered. |
| 3.1.8 Is clearer guidance needed in regards to consolidation of objections? Please explain. | No comment offered. |
| 3.1.9 Many community members have highlighted the high costs of objections. Do you believe that the costs of objections created a negative impact on their usage? If so, do you have suggestions for improving this issue? Are there issues beyond cost that might impact access, by various parties, to objections? | No comment offered. |
| 3.1.10 Do you feel that GAC Early Warnings were helpful in identifying potential concerns with applications? Do you have suggestions on how to mitigate concerns identified in GAC Early Warnings? | No comment offered. |
| 3.1.11 What improvements and clarifications should be made to GAC Advice procedures? What mitigation mechanisms are needed to respond to GAC Advice? How can timelines be made more precise? | GAC advice in relation to gTLDs must include rationales. No comment on timelines offered. |
| 3.2 New gTLD Applicant Freedom of Expression (Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Uz2AAw) | |
| 3.2.1 Noting that the 2007 Final Report on new gTLDs tried to balance the rights of applicants (e.g.,Principle G) and rights holders (Recommendation 3), do you believe that the program was successful in doing so? If not, do you have examples of where either an applicant’s freedom of expression or a person or entity’s legal rights were infringed? | No comment offered. |
| 3.3 Community Applications and Community Priority Evaluations (Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Wz2AAw) | |
| 3.3.1 As indicated in the Implementation Guidance of the 2007 Final Report, the claim by an applicant to support a community was intended to be taken on trust unless the applied-for TLD is in contention with one or more TLDs or is the respondent in an objection. As a result, the claim to support a community was only evaluated in Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) and Community Objections. Do you believe that the implementation and delivery of CPE were consistent with the policy recommendations and implementation guidance provided by the GNSO? If no, do you have suggested improvements to either the policy/implementation guidance or implementation? | No change is required IF the only benefit of being a Community TLD is in relation to objections and priority. However, the ALAC supports other advantages such as preferential pricing (bot at the application and operational levels) and if that is adopted, all Community applications should be examined. |
| 3.3.2 There is a general sentiment amongst many in the community that the CPE process did not provide consistency and predictability in the 2012 round. Do you believe this was the case and if so, do you have examples or evidence of these issues? | Yes, that was the case. In the view of the ALAC, .kids and .gay are two such examples. |
| 3.3.3 CPE was the one instance in the New gTLD Program where there was an element of a comparative evaluation and as such, there were inherently winners and losers created. Do you believe there is a need for community priority, or a similar mechanism, in subsequent procedures? Do you believe that it can be designed in such a fashion as to produce results that are predictable, consistent, and acceptable to all parties to CPE? The GNSO policy recommendations left the issue of a method for resolving contention for community claimed names to Board and the implementation. Do you believe that a priority evaluation is the right way to handle name contention with community applicants? Should different options be explored? If so which options should be explored and why? | CPE is still reasonable if properly implemented and the criteria not set purely to limit gaming. |
| 3.3.4 Were the rights of communities (e.g., freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and principle of non-discrimination) infringed by the New gTLD Program? Please provide specific examples. | No comment offered. |
| 3.3.5 Besides CPE, are there other aspects of the New gTLD Program related to communities that should be considered in a more holistic fashion? For instance, in the 2012 round, the claim to support a community is largely only relevant when resolving string contention. Do you think community applications should be structured and/or evaluated differently than other applications? | See 3.1.1. |
| 3.4 String Similarity (Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/VT2AAw) | |
| 3.4.1 There was a perception that consistency and predictability of the string similarity evaluation needs to be improved. Do you have examples or evidence of issues? If so, do you have suggested changes to the policy recommendations or implementation that may lead to improvement? For instance, should the standard of string confusion that the evaluation panel used be updated or refined in any way? | As noted above, singular/plural needs to be considered and mitigation policies should be a factor as well. See 3.1.1 |
| 3.4.2 Should the approach for string similarity in gTLDs be harmonized with the way in which they are handled in ccTLDs (ccNSO IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is described here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en)? | Yes. See 3.1.1. |
| 3.4.3 The WG and the wider community have raised concerns specifically related to singles and plurals of the same word. Do you have suggestions on how to develop guidance on singles and plurals that will lead to predictable outcomes? Would providing for more predictability of outcomes unfairly prejudice the rights of applicants or others? | See 3.1.1. Additional criteria could impact some applications but user confusion must be considered as a higher priority. Mitigation could lessen any negative impact on applications. |
| 3.4.4 Do you believe that there should be some sort of mechanism to allow for a change of applied-for TLD when it is determined to be in contention with one or more other strings? If so, do you have suggestions on a workable mechanism? | No. |
| 3.4.5 Do you feel that the contention resolution mechanisms from the 2012 round (i.e., CPE and last-resort auctions) met the needs of the community in a sufficient manner? Please explain. | Yes. |
| 3.4.6 Do you believe that private auctions (i.e., NOT the auctions of last resort provided by ICANN) resulted in any harm? Could they lead to speculative applications seeking to participate in a private auction in future application processes? Should they be allowed or otherwise restricted in the future? | Yes, private auctions they could lead to speculative applications. They should not be allowed. |
| 3.5 Accountability Mechanisms (Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/WT2AAw) | |
| 3.5.1 Do you believe that the existing accountability mechanisms (Request for Reconsideration, Independent Review Process, and the Ombudsman) are adequate avenues to address issues encountered in the New gTLD Program? | With the new review mechanisms implemented as a result of the ICANN Accountability measure, and subject to the answer to 3.5.2, yes. |
| 3.5.2 Should there be appeal mechanisms, specific to the New gTLD Program, introduced into the program? If yes, for what areas of the program (e.g., evaluations, objections, CPE)? Do you have suggestions for high-level requirements (e.g., if the appeal should be limited to procedural and/or substantive issues, who conducts the review, who is the final arbiter, safeguards against abuse, etc.). | ?? |
1 Comment
Alan Greenberg
I have done a first pass at responses. In many, I have no knowledge or strong opinion and had not included a comment.
In 3.5.2 I think we should answer, but do not have a really good one.
I welcome comments!