This work space is designed to hose a proposed ALAC response to the GAC indicative scorecard on new gTLD outstanding issues listed in the GAC Cartagena Communiqué (available at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-scorecard-23feb11-en.pdf).

BACKGROUND

At the GAC/ALAC meeting of March 13, 2011, the GAC specifically requested a written formal response from the ALAC to the above-stated Scorecard. I the subsequent days of the ICANN 40 meeting, the ICANN Board and other stakeholders have also requested similar ALAC feedback.

Originally, based on the request of the GAC an original proposal was to I would group the scorecard items into logical themes that can each be addressed as a whole, and even (should we want) prioritized in our own wayaccording to ALAC needs:

• Objection procedure (snapshot #1, 2, 12)
• Reserved strings (#6, 7)
• Special categories of applications (#8, 10)
• Operational readiness (#3, 6.4)
• Business and market considerations (#4,5)
• Legal considerations (#9,11)

I (Evan) personally would like to add As well, consideration was given to one more theme that does not tie into specific scorecard items but is implied in the scorecard document as well as subsequent conversations:

• Timing considerations

As of the end of the ICANN 40 meeting, it was decided to revert to a commentary that would address the Scorecard point-by-point for the sake of the reader's convenience.

DETAILED RESPONSE

ALAC have been widely accused, incorrectly, of being lock-step with the GAC position. This document will be able to demonstrate where we are in sync and where we diverge, along with polite counterpoints and suggested modifications that could (IMO) be more useful in the evolution of GAC policy development than the response It's receiving from the Board.

...

6.2. Rights Protection: Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS)

...

)

...

6.3. Rights Protection: Post-delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP)

...