...

In agreeing with (#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. Alternatively, an applicant should have the option to withdraw its application in good faith, and be reimbursed their application fee (less reasonable expenses incurred in the objection process and administration to that stage).

At all stages the emphasis must be on achieving consensus and amicable resolution rather than confrontation and adversarial processes. We are reminded of Lawrence Strickling's keynote address during the Opening Ceremony of ICANN's recently concluded 40th meeting:

...

• All of (#6.1), including (#6.1.7.1) so long as such use of the Trademark Clearinghouse does not delay registrations
• Simplified complaint format (#6.2.2)
• Decisions should not require full panels (#6.2.3)
• Six month deadline for filing an appeal (#6.2.10.2)
• A successful complainant should have first right of refusal for transfer (#6.2.12))
• We would accept A "loser pays" regime (#6.2.8)  in specific cases only if it is shown that the loser has a history of repeated bad-faith infringement

However, we draw the line at measures that go beyond protection of public trust and confidence, but are designed 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, due process, community consensus and the public interest. In these instances we support the ICANN Board's response:

• Removal of reference to "substantive evaluation" (#6.2.4)
• Elimination of reasonable due process (#6.2.5, 6.2.9)
• Reducing standards of proof to not require "clear and convincing evidence" (#6.2.6)
• Elimination of a requirement of bad faith when determining URS action (#6.2.7)
• A "loser pays" regime (#6.2.8)
• Requirement of a separate rationale for filing of appeal (#6.2.10.1)
• Extend URS beyond exact matches (#6.2.13)

...

The GAC Scorecard, in our view, simply adds one more strong voice to the need for categorisation to what already exists. While arguments have been made -- and should be heeded -- about the concern that 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 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. We also believe that the potential for gaming would be reduced through ongoing monitoring by ICANN.

The ALAC view of categories indicated in the Scorecard as are follows:

...

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 note that only the vested interests within ICANN are pushing for a massive round of simultaneous applications and approvals. ALAC advises a more staggered approach, with a steady timetable of approvals and delegations. Doing so would be consistent with the controls advocated in the GAC's September 23rd letter to the ICANN Board. It would also allow for the kind of careful technical monitoring (and appropriate resource allocation) 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 (#10, Theme 3 above). We believe that a regular timetable of rounds should be implemented, and propose that new application rounds take place at predictable intervals so as to ease pressure on the first round.

Theme 5: Business and Market Considerations

...

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-

...

REFERENCE TO THE SCORECARD