Page History

...

In the past few months At-Large 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 are properly and independently evaluated well in advance of any necessary Board action. The CWG recommendations fully implement GNSO Guideline H while achieving full community consensus, and without requiring the DRSP. Critically, they the CWG's consensus and "strong support" recommendations change the fundamental nature of the string evaluation from a subjective comparison of morality to a more-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 PAG.

...

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 ensure that its briefings on this matter fully and fairly consider the working group's recommendattionsrecommendations.

Independent Objector

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 has been re-architected as a tool to allow the introduction of anonymous, unaccountable, opaque objections. Upon 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, the potential for misuse has been made clear; 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. If ICANN should insist -- against the public good -- to implement the IO, it must at least implement all gthe necessary safeguards to prevent the dangers inherent in the current design.

We also note that if the IO is abolished, the significant cost savings possible can and should be achieved, and considered in the cost-recovery analysis of the gTLD program.

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 that is in the wrong direction. According to the response to community initiative, "risk management" now appears to be a primary policy goal of ICANN -- and, conveniently, a primary obstacle to change.

Regrettably, we feel the need to 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 PAG 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 PAG discredits ICANN claims of increasing accountability and transparency.unmigrated-wiki-markup

*\[ The At-Large perspective, the core issues remain maximizing the benefits and minimizing the confusion from the introduction of new gTLDs to the average Internet user... \]*In this respect, and inasmuch as the At-Large Community believes Community remains committed to maximising benefit and minimising confusion in the creation of new gTLDs. We believe that significant gTLD growth is necessary to enhance end-user choice and healthy competition in the Internet namespace. Because of this, it is with deep regret that we must unfortunately but categorically state that we consider the current DAG to be unacceptable as presented, and against the best interest of Internet end-users. We request that the Board and staff implement the community process rather than be an obstacle to it.