AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
Page History
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
Earlier premilinary preliminary analysis of the Scorecard, based on the ALAC work within the Rec6 Working Group, resulted in a preliminary analysis whose results are available at ALAC - February 2011 - GAC-Board Meeting
...
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 judgments 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 judgementsjudgments. 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, 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.
...
However, the At-Large community has been alarmed by what has become an environment of trademark obsession within from some ICANN actors. The original "IRT" group chartered by the Board, which shunned community participation, went far beyond reasonable trademark protections and would have empowered ICANN to enforce protections well beyond that afforded by existing law or treaty. Extension of protection to prevent strings which were "similar" to marks, for instance, was a clear example of stepping outside of common sense and into the realm of stifling competition and choice. It is unfortunate that such anti-public-interest foolishness, attempted by the IRT but rebuffed by the STI recommendations, has crept back into the GAC Scorecard. The assertion of of these extreme measures as in the public interest and serving consumer protection is baseless and almost offensive.
...
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, harassment, 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.
No | Scorecard Item | ALAC Theme | ALAC View |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | The objection procedures including the requirements for governments to pay fees | 1 | Agree with GAC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Procedures for the review of sensitive strings
2.1. String Evaluation and Objections Procedure
2.2. Expand Categories of Community-based Strings
3. Root Zone Scaling
4. Market and Economic Impacts
5. Registry – Registrar Separation
6. Protection of Rights Owners and consumer protection issue
6.1. Rights Protection: Trademark Clearing House (TC)
6.2. Rights Protection: Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS)
6.3. Rights Protection: Post-delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP)
6.4. Consumer Protection
7. Post-Delegation Disputes
8. Use of Geographic Names
8.1. Definition of geographic names
8.2. Further requirements regarding geographic names
9. Legal Recourse for Applications
10. Providing opportunities for all stakeholders including those from developing countries
11. Law enforcement due diligence recommendations to amend the Registrar Accreditation Agreement as noted in the Brussels Communiqué
12. The need for an early warning to applicants whether a proposed string would be considered controversial or to raise sensitivities (including geographical names)
...
Proposal by Alan Greenberg:
...
