Page History

...

In the past few months At-Large have has 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 is simpler and less expensive, while ensuring that objections were are properly and independently evaluated well in advance of any necessary Board action. The CWG proposed changes -recommendations fully implemented implement GNSO Guideline H while achieving full community consensus. Critically, it changed they change the fundamental nature of the evaluation from a subjective comparison of morality to an objective analysis of objections against international law. Yet, with a sweeping comment of "we disagree" in its explanatory notes, ICANN 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 inadequately 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 "Joint Applicant Support" (JAS) working group also achieved significant consensus on many important issues 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 at the appropriate time.

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 has been re-architected as a tool to allow staff to introduce the introduction of anonymous, unaccountable objections and to introduce a completely unnecessary element of opaqueness and secrecy, opaque objections. Upon analyzing analysing the issue ALAC is now strongly of the opinion that role of the Independent Objector must be eliminated. While we understand its reason for creation, its the 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.

...