Page History

Notes/ Action Items

1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): None provided.

2. Review of summary document: (continued) -- Global Public Interest (https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yzc7sE/edit?usp=sharing) – start at Verified TLDs, Page 6

Verified TLDs:

-- Updated the sections on mandatory and voluntary PICs to include divergence from the Public Interest Community and the NCSG.

-- The word “likelihood” should be fixed.  Edit and check with IPC re: IPC comment and the word “likelihood”.  Typo in the original comment.

-- As as it's been applied a verified TLD is one that verifies the potential registrants meets registry standards prior to registering a domain. So for instance, the registry operator might require registrants to be appropriately credentialed to practice where they do business.  And that's where that implied trust comes in, I think, so that end users can trust that domains in that TLD are going to be authentic. 

CCT-RT Recommendations:

-- For absolute clarity, is the ALAC position that the RPM PDP must be completed in its entirety (ie, Phase 1 and Phase 2) prior to next round commencing?

-- As a reminder, this WG has a tracking sheet for all of the CCT-RT recommendations aimed at SubPro: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PGV5_nMafLWtSHyCGdr-b8eqoJj9B8YKBSheVJQcvHg/edit?usp=sharing.  And it has been updated to take into account what the Board has passed through to SubPro.

-- John Laprise - to answer Jeff's question, could you add to your email earlier today to the SubPro list re ALAC position the document in which this position is recorded?

------------------------

ALAC statement:

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com>

Date: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 22:20

To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>

Cc: 'ALAC Members' <ALAC-members@icann.org>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org>

Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ALAC position on newgTLD subpro

Hi everyone,

Just a useful reminder of ALAC’s position as asserted to ICANN GDD at ICANN65:

ALAC will not support a new gTLD round until full implementation of CCT and RPM recommendations are fully implemented.

Best regards,

John Laprise, Ph.D.

NARALO ALAC Representative

ALAC Vice Chair-Policy

----------------------

-- Can staff please send me [Justine] an AI on the questions being posed with respect to John Laprise's comment? Thanks.

Questions:

1. Is ALAC's position documented anywhere?
2. On the CCT Review - Does John's comment refer to ALL CCT Recommendations or to just those prerequisites (as labeled by the CCT Review Team)
3. With respect to the RPM PDP, does John's comment relate to just Phase 1 of the PDP or to both Phase 1 and 2.
4. The value of precedent within the ALAC...I will flush this one out further by comparing answers from Community Comment 1 and 2.

--- @jeff, in respect of your #4 my immediate answer is what you term as a “precedent”; is not precedent in the actual sense of the word, but ALAC positions are not immune to change with developments over time.

-- Thanks Justine - This is why seeing the rationale and not just the final position/resolution/outcome is important.

-- Jeff, your question #4 seems to assume that, if there is a difference in position between Comment 1 and 2, that somehow this indicates that ALAC has disregarded or “devalued” “precedent.”  I don’t think that’s a fair assumption.

-- Given that we have only one very high-level articulation of a high-level agreement and many divergent points under outstanding items;, it's not clear to me what our overall objective is in this section. Are we hoping to distill from outstanding items more points as high-level agreements?

-- Thanks, Jeff - looking for commonalites makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.

-- One thing to consider is that the policy goal may not be achievable, insofar as we are not able to work out some explicit implementation matrix (ie, X weighs heavier than Y)

-- @Greg- and therein lies the problem. Reaching agreement on a definition has not yet been achieved at the level of international law, so us achieving that here is a big ask.

Freedom of Expression:

-- High-level agreement -- Support: May not be accurate.  May need a more neutral phrase. Need to provide specific implementation guidance. Need to better define what is meant by “applicant freedom of expression”.  Broader term than freedom of speech.

-- Difficult for the WG to develop a definition since it hasn’t yet been done.

-- High level agreement is that there are freedom of expression rights.

-- Start with Implementation Guidelines section on the next call.