Page History

...

Scorecard items 2.2, 6.4.4, 8, 10

Despite Shunning widespread community request, ICANN has not budged from its long-standing position of only two categories of applications -- "regular" and "community". This is despite the fact that GNSO policy on gTLDs allows for categorizationcategorisation, and indeed also explicitly allows for differential pricing for different categories (another policy conveniently overlooked in all versions of the AG to date).

The GAC Scorecard, in our view, simply adds one more strong voice to the need for categorization beyond categorisation to what now already exists. While arguments have been made -- and should be heeded -- about the concern that categorizatioin categorisatioin mechanisms would be subverted for financial gain (also known as "gamed"), ALAC holds the view that such concerns are not sufficient to resist implementation of new necessary categories. Even if gaming succeeds, in our view it is prefereable preferable to inadvertently let a few applications "slip through the cracks" than to deny the public service and innovation possible through creating a small number of new categories.

...

Extension of the "community" designation to industry sectors (#2.2, 6.4.4): In principle, we endorse ALAC endorses the GAC position of wanting a special status for TLD names which indicate entire sectors which may be subject to regulation (such as .bank, .pharma, .lawyer). We are unclear about what form of extended evaluation is expected for such applications, and how the evaluation criteria are to be verified and enforced post-delegation. At-Large members have been following the High Security TLD Working Group and applaud its efforts; however its work seems too highly focused only on the financial services industry and might be overkill for other sectors. We are also concerned about the limits of such a designation; for instance, would ".shop" -- a real application-in-waiting -- be affected, since many countries regulate retail sales? We understand the public-protection aspects of such a recommendation but are unsure if its execution is sufficiently evolved to be implentable without incurring significant delay to the new-gTLD process. Perhaps this "category" of TLD applications only should be delayed until appropriate public-interest concerns and solutions are studied before implementation.

...

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 meet a rigid criteria regarding location, local ownership, 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 rolescenario, 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 "worthworthy" for a limited pool of subsidy funds.ICANN staff's refusal to even discuss the concept of differential pricing has hampered attempts seriously impeded efforts to research potential areas of cost saving within the current application framework. And while the Board response to Scorecard # 10 #10 is to await the final work of the JAS, we note that it has already explicitly rejected early JAS appeals for lowered pricing at a previous meeting. We strongly endorse the GAC's effort to request the ICANN Board to reconsider this regressive and anti-competitive position. And we encourage ongoing monitoring of the costs to administer the gTLD program to determine where price reductions may be enabled for these applicants while maintaining over general principles of overall cost-recovery (see Theme 4 below).

...

ALAC shares all of the GAC concerns and recommendations related to ICANN's readiness to expand the Root Zone, sufficiently to accommodate the large expansion of gTLDs envisioned by the number of current applications-in-waiting. We would note that only the vested interests within ICANN are pushing for a massive round of simultaneous applications and approvals. We would advise ALAC advises a more staggered approach, with a steady timetable of approvals and delegations. Doing so would allow for the kind of careful technical monitoring (and appropriate compensation) demanded by the GAC recommendations, and would also have the side-benefit of providing more precise cost calculations for administering the approval/delegation process. Such calculations will be of great value to the efforts to determine what cost reductions are possible for applicants to whom current pricing is an unreasonable obstacle to entry (Scorecard #10, Theme 3 above).

...

Regarding market and economic impact (Scorecard #4): ALAC believes that the market and the public interest is best served by a variety of strings and (well regulated) strings and business models. ICANN should not be in the business of evaluating business models beyond the their sustainability of the plans (which are is 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 (and difficulty of enforcement) post-delegation. We have already seen registries such as .pro significantly alter their business models from what existed at launch -- while perhaps unfortunate, such market-driven practice cannot and should not be unduly constrained. The only exception to this are self-declared community applications, in which we support the GAC call for "Due diligence or other operating restrictions to ensure that Community-based gTLDs will in fact serve their targeted communities".

Regarding cross-ownership between registries and registrars (Scorecard #5): The At-Large Community was an active participant in member of the ICANN Vertical Integration Working Group. Our participants in that group were 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 makes a number of points that should recommendations to 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.
• On applications for single-registrar TLDs that are not community applications, for which allocation policy is made by the registry (generally known as "dot-brands") the At-Large community is divided. Some believe that dot-brands are not in the public interest. Others believe that allocation is acceptable for unique coined brand names (ie, .exxon or .persil) but not for brands that are also generic words (ie, .shell or .tide). ALAC recommends that this particular form of application has not been sufficiently thought out to determine its impact on the public. Our preference is to postpone the allocation of dot-brands until the gTLD string evaluation process has demonstrated more maturity, gained greater awareness by the community and been studied in regard to public-interest aspects. (A staggered TLD release approach, as recommended above in Theme 4, facilitates and hastens such study)
• Compliance will be is 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.

...

Regarding the ability of applicants to seek legal redress (Scorecard #9): We understand ALAC understands and appreciate appreciates the desire of ICANN to reduce its legal exposure by asking for waivers from legal redress by applicants. However, we note the GAC Scoredcard Scorecard statement that such requests may be legally difficult. ALAC considers this issue to be more of a legal matter than one of policy, and will not offer an opinion on it.

Regarding the role of law enforcement in the due dilligence diligence evaluation of applicants (Scorecard #11): ALAC generally supports the GAC position on this issue. Public confidence requires that the criminal background of applicants should be a factor in TLD evaluation, especially in the case of sensitive strings that connote services of or communities requiring enhanced trust (ie, medical and financial services). We absolutely endorse the requirement (and ongoing auditing) of accurate WHOIS data for all registrants, as well as the request for transparency and public availability of results of the due diligence process for applicants.

Our only substantive disagreement with the GAC proposal is with two words; the singling out of drug crimes. We are far more concerned with crimes that, by their definition, involve harm to others such as fraud, harrassmentharassment, identity theft, hate crimes and crimes of violence (whether Internet-related or not). All of these are more applicable to user trust than minor drug infractions.

...