AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
Page History
...
The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) welcomes the opportunity to provide a response to the "GAC Scorecard" related to new gTLD creation (available at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-scorecard-23feb11-en.pdf).
BACKGROUND
ALAC has always had significant challenges regarding both the processes taken to produce the current gTLD Applicant Guidebook (AG) as well as its result. We share the GAC's frustration in dealing with this process and appreciate its direct approach to asserting its views in the Scorecard.
...
It must be emphasized that, because of the extremely compressed time-line allowed for this response, ALAC has not received as much community feedback that such a statement would normally warrant. While its authors have solicited comment and ALAC endorsement, this statement is still subject to review and possible refinement pending broader At-Large distribution. If the language below is seen as too sharp, the reader is asked to accept our apologies -- but also to understand that we have had both little time and few words with which to express our concerns.
RESPONSE
Theme 1: Objection Procedure
...
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.
CROSS-REFERNCE TO THE SCORECARD
No. | Scorecard Item | ALAC Theme |
|---|---|---|
1 | The objection procedures including the requirements for governments to pay fees | 1 |
2 | Procedures for the review of sensitive strings | 1 |
2.1 | String Evaluation and Objections Procedure | 1 |
2.2 | Expand Categories of Community-based Strings | 3 |
3 | Root Zone Scaling | 4 |
4 | Market and Economic Impacts | 5 |
5 | Registry – Registrar Separation | 5 |
6 | Protection of Rights Owners and consumer protection issue | 2 |
6.1 | Rights Protection: Trademark Clearing House (TC) | 2 |
6.2 | Rights Protection: Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) | 2 |
6.3 | Rights Protection: Post-delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP) | 2 |
6.4 | Consumer Protection | 2,3 (6.4.4) |
7 | Post-Delegation Disputes | 2 |
8 | Use of Geographic Names | 3 |
8.1 | Definition of geographic names | 3 |
8.2 | Further requirements regarding geographic names | 3 |
9 | Legal Recourse for Applications | 6 |
10 | Providing opportunities for all stakeholders including those from developing countries | 3 |
11 | Law enforcement due diligence recommendations to amend the Registrar Accreditation Agreement as noted in the Brussels Communiqué | 6 |
12 | The need for an early warning to applicants whether a proposed string would be considered controversial or to raise sensitivities | 1 |
