AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
ALAC Liaisons and Representatives
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
Page History
...
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.
We believe that the experience of the .XXX domain approval -- a decision with which ALAC agrees, counter to the GAC advice -- offers a useful point of reference. The public interest is best served by being reasonably liberal in string acceptance, lest ICANN be drawn into unfamiliar territory of content-based judgements. The threat of national blocking of domains will exist, as it already does in the case of second-level domains and even occasionally for top-level domains. Sovereign countries can and will exercise national policy, which could even mean blocking domains that ICANN might accept as benign. As the GAC has been generally silent on existing cases of domain blocking as threats to Internet stability, so we are cautious regarding ongoing threats of this kind. The global Internet-using public interest is badly served in being deprived of a TLD string (and a potential community focal point) simply because of the perceived insult of a small number of national governments. The Internet does not exist to only provide information that pleases everyone.
In this light, we strongly endorse the demand of Scorecard #1 to 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:
- 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)
- 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
- The community must be given due process to "object to the objection", and offer arguments counter to the recommendation to reject a string
- Neither the Board nor ICANN staff can raise an objection without it being vetted by one of the above processes; specifically
- All objection processes must be transparent; specifically, anonymous objections are explicitly NOT allowed
- 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
- 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.
- Insult or disrespect alone should not be suitable grounds for a successful objection.
In agreeing with Scorecard #12, we also believe that it is simple common sense to be able to alert TLD applicants, as early in the application process as possible, to potential objections. Furthermore, applicants should be given the ability to suspend the application process (ie, a "time out") while such disputes may be resolved at such an early stage. Applicants, having entered such good-faith negotiations with potential objectors, should be able to make minor changes to their applications in order to comply with a negotiated settlement.
At all stages the emphasis must be on achieving consensus and amicable resolution rather than confrontation and adversarial processes.
Theme 2: Trademark-based reserved strings
Scorecard items 6, 7
We agree that a well-functioning trademark protection regime serves the public interest. Substantial portions of the Internet-using public have encountered attempts to mis-represent brands; indeed the execution of "phishing" requires a bad actor posing as a trustworthy one. To that end, ALAC fully supported the broad community consensus recommendations of ICANN's Special Trademark Issues (STI) working group. We are totally in favour of activity that prevents any misrepresentation of known trade names -- including names that may not be conventionally registered as trademarks because they are used in other contexts (such as Commonwealth countries' recognition of common-law marks or aboriginal shared wisdom).
However, the At-Large community has been alarmed by what has become a veritable trademark obsession within ICANN. The original "IRT" group, which shunned community participation, went far beyond reasonable trademark protections, empowering ICANN to
For this reason, we support many of the Scorecard's names-protection measures:
Theme 3: Special categories of applications
...