Page History

...

After the last DAG was released, the Board requested feedback on two important issues: assistance to gTLD applicants in developing economies, and changing the process of dealing with TLD strings that might be considered obscene or objectionable (the so-called "Morality and Public Order" category of objection). Both these issues were immediately take up by cross-community groups, which in unprecedented manner produced specific and concrete changes to the application process that would be consistent with existing mandates while addressing community concerns about these two important issues. In both cases, public comment has been essentially ignored,

As a perfect example, A substantial part of At-Large's long-time opposition to the Morality and Public Order objection has been significantly based on the Staff-designed with the "Dispute Resolution Service Provider" (DRSP), a processs we consider process that At-Large has held to be unethical, opaque, and cumbersome. The current implementation requires applicants and objectors to spend vast amounts of money on a needlessly litigious process, opening wide opportunities for gaming while forcing ICANN to make (or subcontract) judgements of comparative morality. This process provides substantial barriers to legitimate objectors while encouraging frivolous objections from well-funded parties.

needlessly expensive to both objector and applicant. In the past few months we At-Large have worked intensively, together with members of the GNSO and GAC, to provide a community-wide consensus alternative process to the DRSP that would eliminate our objections. The CWG was explicit in charting a path that was simpler, less expensive while ensuring that objections were properly evaluated well in advance of any necessary Board action. The CWG proposed changes fully implemented GNSO Guideline H while achieving full community consensus.Yet, with a sweeping comment of "we disagree" in its explanatory notes, ICANN staff has essentially shrugged off the community consensus and the DRSP concept remains essentially untouched in the new DAG. We believe that it is the role of support staff to implement policy, not to agree or disagree with interpretations.

Consequently, members of At-Large who have been active participants in this process have substantial and justifiable concerns that the CWG details have improperly and insufficiently presented to the Board, and as a result its recommendations have not received appropriate consideration. At very least we request the Board to defer this issue and allow CWG members to personally advance and explain it.

Another cross-community GNSO/ALAC effort -- to determine ways to reduce barriers to would-be applicants from developing and emerging economies -- would help demonstrate ICANN's global relevance and eagerness to expand Internet access worldwide, while closing the technology gap between rich and poor. This group too "Joint Applicant Support" (JAS) working group also achieved significant consensus on many important issues , yet none of its recommendations are to be found in the new DAG.and is under approval processes at both the GNSO and ALAC. Given the difficulties of properly bringing forward the CWG recommendations, we urge the Board to hear directly from the JAS about its proposals.

On the matter of the Independent Objector, critical safeguards of the public interest have either been removed or left out. Rather than a mechanism to prevent applicants and objectors to effect outcomes merely by out-spending their opponents, the IO is being re-architected as a tool to allow staff to introduce anonymous, unaccountable objections and to introduce a completely unnecessary element of opaqueness and secrecy. Upon analyzing the issue ALAC is now strongly of the opinion that role of the Independent Objector be eliminated. While we understand its for creation, its potential for misuse has been made clear and any benefit it might provide will be far outweighed by its invitation for gaming and bullying. The accessibility issues that the IO was designed to address can be fulfilled if the CWG recommendations are implemented Wiki MarkupOn the matter of the Independent Objector, critical safeguards of the public interest have either been removed or left out. Rather than a mechanism to prevent applicants and objectors to effect outcomes merely by out-spending their opponents, the IO is being re-architected as a tool to allow staff to introduce anonymous, unaccountable objections and to introduce a completely unnecessary element of opaqueness and secrecy. \*\[NEED SPECIFICS HERE. Hong?\] * ALAC is strongly of the opinion that if the IO process cannot be \*completely, 100%\* open and transparent it must not exist at all.

It is unfortunate that the DAG has regressed rather than progressed since its last iteration. Rather than incorporate important and clear cross-community direction, Board and Staff have dismissed it as inconvenient or too much of a change from inertia of its own creationin the wrong direction. According to staff's the response to community initiative, "risk management" now appears to be a primary policy goal of ICANN -- and, conveniently, a primary obstacle to change.

It is unfortunate that we feel the need to remind our audience be reminded of the "Plan for Organization of ICANN Staff" (May 22, 2003) which states clearly that the role of Staff is to "execute the settled policy" -- not to agree or disagree with it, or indeed affect it at all. Given that the current DAG ignores or repudiates almost all of the significant cross-community consensus presented since the last revision, the At-Large Community has serious concerns about the sincerity of ICANN assertions of being a truly bottom-up process. In ICANN's being judged by actions rather than words, the DAG discredits the ATRT and other claims of increasing accountability.

...