Page History

...

We have chosen to address the Scorecard by "theme" as opposed to line-by-line, in part because of the compress timeline required for this Response but also because some themes are spread between multiple Scorecard items (which will be denoted as (#1), etc in the analysis below).

Theme 1: Objection Procedure

...

The ALAC agrees with the GAC request for the complete elimination of the AG module related to the method of objecting to TLD strings considered widely obscene. Despite broad and prolonged demonstrated community opposition -- most recently through the cross-community "Rec 6" Working Group -- ICANN clings to a needlessly complex, expensive and adversarial process requiring an outsourced "Dispute Resolution Service Provider", an "Independent Objector", and forcing the ICANN Board to either make or delegate judgements of comparative morality. At the At-Large Summit held during the Mexico City ICANN meeting, ALAC explicitly stated that the current process is "unacceptable" and serves counter to the public interest. ICANN's obsession with a judicial, adversarial process provides a barrier to legitimate objections and needless expense to TLD applicants defending against trivial, unsustainable objections. We continue to hold that position and have responded accordingly to subsequent AG revisions which have maintained this unfortunate procedure.

In this light, we applaud strongly endorse the GAC demand of Scorecard #1 to complete completely eliminate the existing AG's Module 3 relating to what is now obscurely called "Limited Public Interest" objections. As a replacement we endorse Scorecard #2.1 with the following conditions:

1. A similar objection mechanism must exist for non-governmental organisations to launch objections (either a better-resourced branch of ALAC, a revised version of the Independent Objector, or something similar)
2. The GAC (and other bodies able to raise objections) should satisfy the broader community that objections it will raise -- as a global advisory body -- reflect a reasonable consensus between members and do not just reflect the whim of a small number of advocates
3. The community must be given due process to "object to the objection", and offer arguments counter to the recommendation to reject a string
4. Neither the Board nor ICANN staff can raise an objection without it being vetted by one of the above processes; specifically
5. All objection processes must be transparent; specifically, anonymous objections are explicitly NOT allowed
6. The Board must have ultimate decision making authority with the unimpeded right to override objection advice; as ICANN's Bylaws already allow, it may contract external expertise to advise on principles of international law and treaty
7. Split decisions -- in which even rough consensus between the GAC, ALAC and other stakeholders is impossible -- should weigh in favour of approving the string under objection. Globally blocking a TLD string on public interest grounds requires, in our view, consensus that the very existence of the string damages the public interest.
8. Insult or disrespect alone should not be suitable grounds for a successful objection.

Theme 2: Trademark-based reserved strings

...