This work space is designed to hose a proposed ALAC response to the GAC indicative scorecard on new gTLD outstanding issues listed in the GAC Cartagena Communiqué (available at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-scorecard-23feb11-en.pdf).
I would group the scorecard items into logical themes that can each be addressed as a whole, and even (should we want) prioritized in our own way:
- Objection procedure (snapshot #1, 2, 12)
- Reserved strings (#6, 7)
- Special categories of applications (#8, 10)
- Operational readiness (#3, 6.4)
- Business and market considerations (#4,5)
- Legal considerations (#9,11)
I (Evan) personally would like to add one more theme that does not tie into specific scorecard items but is implied in the scorecard document as well as subsequent conversations:
- Timing considerations
ALAC have been widely accused, incorrectly, of being lock-step with the GAC position. This document will be able to demonstrate where we are in sync and where we diverge, along with polite counterpoints and suggested modifications that could (IMO) be more useful in the evolution of GAC policy development than the response It's receiving from the Board.
1. The objection procedures including the requirements for governments to pay fees
2. Procedures for the review of sensitive strings
2.1. String Evaluation and Objections Procedure
2.2. Expand Categories of Community-based Strings
3. Root Zone Scaling
4. Market and Economic Impacts
5. Registry – Registrar Separation
6. Protection of Rights Owners and consumer protection issue
6.1. Rights Protection: Trademark Clearing House (TC)
6.2. Rights Protection: Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS)
3. Rights Protection: Post-delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP).............................................................................10
4. Consumer Protection ................................................................................................................................................................11
7. Post-Delegation Disputes .............................................................................................................................................................12
8. Use of geographic names: ............................................................................................................................................................12
1. Definition of geographic names................................................................................................................................................12
2. Further requirements regarding geographic names....................................................................................................................13
9. Legal Recourse for Applications: .................................................................................................................................................14
10. Providing opportunities for all stakeholders including those from developing countries..............................................................14
Main issues .....................................................................................................................................................................................14
11. Law enforcement due diligence recommendations to amend the Registrar Accreditation Agreement as noted in the Brussels
Communiqué ......................................................................................................................................................................................17
12. The need for an early warning to applicants whether a proposed string would be considered controversial or to raise sensitivities
(including geographical names)...........................................................................................................................................................17
