Page History
...
A draft version of the ALAC Statement on the GAC New gTLD Scorecard was posted for discussion on an At-Large Community wiki page on 18 March 2011 and announced on an At- Large Group Skype Chat during the 40th ICANN Meeting held in San Francisco. Following a call for comments, Evan Leibovitch drafted a first version of the ALAC Statement on the GAC New gTLD Scorecard on 22 March which was discussed during an ALAC Executive Committee call on 24 March. Following this call, significant community input, as well as a table created by Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Co-Vice-Chair of the At-Large Advisory Committee, were incorporated into the first version, thus creating the second version (the present document).
...
The original version of this document is the English text available at www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence. Where a difference of interpretation exists or is perceived to exist between a non‐English edition of this document and the original text, the original shall prevail.
...
The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) welcomes the opportunity to provide a response to the "GAC Scorecard" related to new gTLD creation (available at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac- (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac\-) scorecard-23feb11-en.pdf).
The ALAC has always had significant challenges regarding both the processes taken to produce the current gTLD Applicant Guidebook (AG) as well as its result. We share the GAC's frustration in dealing with this process and appreciate its direct approach to asserting its views in the Scorecard.
Preliminary analysis of the Scorecard, based on the ALAC work within the Rec6 Working Group and previous work, resulted in a collection of policy available at ALAC - February 2011 - GAC-Board Meeting.
At the GAC/ALAC meeting of March 13, 2011 during ICANN Meeting 40, the GAC specifically requested a redacted formal response from the ALAC to the above-stated Scorecard. During the scheduled ALAC report to the ICANN Board on March 18, the Chair of the ICANN Board also requested this report, to be created within one week of the end of ICANN Meeting 40. In the days following the ICANN Meeting 40 meeting, other stakeholders have also requested similar feedback.
...
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.
NOTE:
The remainder of the document consists of a Board Response Cross-Reference Table which is not being voted on.
...
