Page History

...

The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is extremely disappointed by the latest release of the Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook of November 12, 2010 (PAG). In significant ways its changes reflect a deliberate step backwards, away from transparency and accountability, and towards secrecy and arbitrary action. Even more importantly, the new guidebook fails at any more than cosmetic accommodation of critical, Board-mandated policy work undertaken by ICANN's grass-roots community.

...

After the PAG was released, based on Board and community response, stakeholders collaborated to provide feedback on two important issues: assistance to gTLD applicants applicants for generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) 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 taken up by cross-community working 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.

...

A substantial part of At-Large's long-time opposition to the Morality and Public Order objection has been with the "Dispute Resolution Service Provider" (DRSP), a 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) judgments judgements of comparative morality. This process provides substantial barriers to legitimate objectors while encouraging frivolous objections from well-funded parties.

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 Cross-Comminity Working Group (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, the CWG's consensus and "strong support" recommendations change the fundamental nature of string 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 PAG.

...

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 Should the ICANN Board and staff insist -- against the public good -- to implement the IO, it they must at least implement all necessary safeguards to prevent the dangers inherent in the current design.

...

The At-Large 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 categorically state that we consider the current DAG PAG 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.