Page History

...

“Choosing between competing interests, rather than insisting on consensus, is destructive of the multistakeholder multi-stakeholder process because it devalues this incentive for everyone to work together.”

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, we draw the line at measures that go beyond protection of public trust and confidence, but are designed to be punitive to lower standards of protection, reduce due process and to "bully" potentially legitimate strings; these are measures in the Scorecard that, in our opinion, are against reasonableness, community consensus and the public interest and in many cases common sense. In these instances we support the ICANN Board's response:

...

In regard to Consumer Protection measures as stated in Scorecard #6.4 (except for #6.4.4, see below), ALAC strongly agrees with the GAC positions (though we also agree with the "due care" response from the Board related to #6.4.2). At-Large has long indicated to ICANN a dissatisfaction with enforcement efforts, and re-enforces the sentiments behind #4.2.3.

Theme 3: Special

...

Categories of

...

Applications

Scorecard items 2.2, 6.4.4, 8, 10

...

Applicants from developing economies requiring relief (#10): ALAC has long been of firm belief that ICANN should offer a beneficial pricing to applicants who need a rigid criteria regarding location, community service and financial need. We continue to charter and encourage the "JAS" working group to explore ways to reduce barriers within the ICANN application framework and advocate cost reduction for worthy applicants. We reject the role, envisioned by some ICANN stakeholders, that would establish a subsidy fund and/or engage in external fundraising. The effort of ICANN to empower applications from all parts of the world must not be one of charity, it must not pit applicants against each other to demonstrate who is most "worth" for a limited pool of subsidy funds.ICANN staff's refusal to even discuss the concept of differential pricing has hampered attempts to research potential areas of cost saving within the current application framework. And while the Board response to Scorecard # 10 is to await the final work of the JAS, it has already definitively rejected early JAS appeals for lowered pricing. We strongly endorse the GAC's effort to request the ICANN Board to reconsider this regressive and anti-competitive position.

Theme 4: Operational

...

Readiness

Scorecard items 3, 6.4

Theme 5: Business and

...

Market Considerations

Scorecard items 4, 5

...

Regarding market and economic impact (Scorecard #4): ALAC believes that the market and the public interest is best served by a variety of (well regulated) strings and business models. ICANN should not be in the business of evaluating business models beyond the sustainability of the plans (which are an Internet stability issue). Applications much have contingency plans of what to do in case of registry failure, and ICANN must have similar default plans that result in minimal disruption for owners of domains in financially failing TLDs. However, we believe that "public benefit" declarations within TLD applications will be of dubious benefit, and in any case subject to substantial modification post-delegation. We have already seen registries such as .pro significantly alter their business models from what existed at launch -- while perhaps unfortunate, such practise cannot and should not be unduly restricted.

Regarding cross-ownership between registries and registrars (Scorecard #5): The At-Large Community was an active participant in the ICANN Vertical Integration Working Group. Our participants in that group was as split in their opinions as the working group was in general when it failed to reach a consensus recommendation.

The above notwithstanding, ALAC wishes to re-iterate its general consensus on a number of points that should be considered regardless of the final cross-ownership regime:

• It is essential that there be mechanisms in place to ensure that cultural and IDN TLDs are not disadvantaged by the rules. Specifically, there is a fear that under some regimes, the requirement to use ICANN accredited registrars and to not self-distribute could jeopardize TLDs that will have a specific regional focus or those using less common scripts or languages. The lack of registrar interest or registrar capability could potentially impact the viability of just those new TLDs that we most want to succeed.
• There should be viable ways for single registrant TLDs to operate effectively. In such a single registrant TLD, all 2nd level domains are used by the registry itself (or its corporate parent) and are not made available to outsiders. The registry controls, and is legally responsible for, all 2nd level domains. The largest projected use is for corporations where the TLD relates to a trademark, but it could also be used for not-for-profits, charities and NGOs. The specific issue is that if there is no demonstrable added value to registrar involvement (since there is no consumer and no competitive issues), such intermediaries should not be required. The benefit to the gTLD eco-system of such gTLDs is that they will serve to acclimatize users to the concept of new gTLDs and will facilitate their acceptance in the general case.
• Compliance will be a critical part of gTLD deployment. It is essential that the rules surrounding the new gTLDs be sufficiently clear and reasonably enforceable; and that ICANN put in place mechanisms to ensure reasonable compliance. The enforcement mechanisms must be sufficiently public that third-party scrutiny and whistle-blowers are welcomed to augment official investigative efforts.

Theme 6: Legal Considerations

Scorecard items 9, 11

Additional theme: Timing

...

Considerations

\[ Possible suggestion of staggering the initial round to release TLDs at, perhaps, three month intervals. This will allow ICANN to more easily ramp up, test technical scalability and enforcement capability, and to reassess costs to enable cost reductions for poor-economy applications \]

...