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).
BACKGROUND
Earlier premilinary analysis of the Scorecard, based on the ALAC work within the Rec6 Working Group, resulted in a preliminary analysis whose results are available at ALAC - February 2011 - GAC-Board Meeting
At the GAC/ALAC meeting of March 13, 2011, the GAC specifically requested a written formal response from the ALAC to the above-stated Scorecard. I the subsequent days of the ICANN 40 meeting, the ICANN Board and other stakeholders have also requested similar ALAC feedback.
Originally, based on the request of the GAC an original proposal was to group the scorecard items into logical themes that can each be addressed as a whole, and even (should we want) prioritised according to ALAC needs:
- Objection procedure (snapshot #1, 2.1, 12)
- Trademark-based reserved strings (#6, 7)
- Special categories of applications (#2.2, 8, 10)
- Operational readiness (#3, 6.4)
- Business and market considerations (#4,5)
- Legal considerations (#9,11)
As well, consideration was given to 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
As of the end of the ICANN 40 meeting, it was decided to revert to a commentary that would address the Scorecard point-by-point for the sake of the reader's convenience.
Proposal by Evan Leibovitch:
THEMATIC RESPONSE
Here is a proposal for an ALAC response to the Scorecard based on the predominant themes it describes. First drafting.
The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) welcomes the opportunity to provide a response to the "GAC Scorecard" related to new gTLD creation. ALAC has always had significant challenges regarding both the processes taken to produce the current 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. This Statement describes our response to the specific content of the Scorecard.
We have chosen to address the Scorecard by "theme" as opposed to line-by-line, in part because of the compress timeline required for this Response but also because some themes are spread between multiple Scorecard items.
Theme 1: Objection Procedure
Scorecard items 1, 2.1, 12
The ALAC agrees with the GAC request for the complete elimination of the AG module related to the method of objecting to TLD strings considered widely obscene. Despite broad and prolonged demonstrated community opposition -- most recently through the cross-community "Rec 6" Working Group -- ICANN clings to a needlessly complex, expensive and adversarial process requiring an outsourced "Dispute Resolution Service Provider", an "Independent Objector", and forcing the ICANN Board to either make or delegate judgements of comparative morality. At the At-Large Summit held during the Mexico City ICANN meeting, ALAC explicitly stated that the current process is "unacceptable" and serves counter to the public interest. ICANN's obsession with a judicial, adversarial process provides a barrier to legitimate objections and needless expense to TLD applicants defending against trivial, unsustainable objections. We continue to hold that position and have responded accordingly to subsequent AG revisions which have maintained this unfortunate procedure.
In this light, we applaud the GAC demand to complete eliminate the existing Module 3 relating to
Theme 2: Trademark-based reserved strings
Scorecard items 6, 7
Theme 3: Special categories of applications
Scorecard items 2.2, 8, 10
Theme 4: Operational readiness
Scorecard items 3, 6.4
Theme 5: Business and market considerations
Scorecard items 4, 5
Theme 6: Legal considerations
Scorecard items 9, 11
Additional theme: Timing considerations
Proposal by Alan Greenberg:
ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard
DETAILED RESPONSE
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.
