ALAC - February 2011 - GAC-Board Meeting

1

The objection procedures including the requirements for governments to pay fees;

Specifically, we wish to emphasize, as strongly as possible, our support for the CWG's consensus calls to:

• Require individual government objections to be made either through the Community Objections Process or through one of the ALAC and the GAC;*
• Enable the GAC and ALAC to submit objections through the Independent Objecto
  - ALAC Statement on the Community Working Group Report on Implementation of GNSO New gTLD Recommendation Number 6, 30.10.10

2

Procedures for the review of sensitive strings;

At-Large has always been generally against the very principle of gTLD string objections based on "morality and public order". However, we see the Rec6 CWG recommendations as an effective way to attend to the most pressing needs while addressing our concerns about the existing implementation. We wholeheartedly concur with the recommendations in the report that achieved Full Consensus or Consensus.
- ALAC Statement on the Community Working Group Report on Implementation of GNSO New gTLD Recommendation Number 6, 30.10.10

3

Root Zone Scaling;

4

Market and Economic Impacts;

5

Registry – Registrar Separation;

6

Protection of Rights Owners and consumer protection issues;

7

Post-delegation disputes with governments;

8

Use and protection of geographical names;

9

Legal recourse for applicants;

Dispute "Resolution" (Attachment to Module 3, Article 3)
A substantial part of At-Large's long-time opposition to the Morality and Public Order objection (Module 3, Section 3.1.2.3) 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) 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-Community 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 fundamentally inappropriate DRSP concept remains essentially untouched in the PAG.
We believe that the role of support staff is to implement policy reached by consensus whilst steering well clear of “agreeing” or “disagreeing” with interpretations. Consequently, members of At-Large who have been active participants in this process have substantial and justifiable concerns that the CWG details have been inadequately and insufficiently presented to the Board, and as a result its recommendations have not received appropriate consideration.
- ALAC Statement  On the Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook; 08.12.10


The Independent Objector (Module 3, Section 3.1.5)
On the matter of the Independent Objector ("IO"), critical safeguards of the public interest have either been removed or left out. Rather than a mechanism to prevent applicants and objectors to affect 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 the At-Large Community is now strongly of the opinion that role of the IO 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 (not related to the IO) are implemented. Should the ICANN Board and staff insist -- against the public good -- to implement the IO, they must at least implement all necessary safeguards to prevent the dangers inherent in the current design.
We also note that if the IO is abolished significant cost savings possible can and should be achieved, and considered in the cost-recovery analysis of the gTLDs program.
- ALAC Statement  On the Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook; 08.12.10

10

Providing opportunities for all stakeholders including those from developing countries;

Applicant Support (Module 1, Section 1.2.10)
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 recommendations.
- ALAC Statement  On the Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook; 08.12.10

11

Law enforcement due diligence recommendations to amend the Registrar Accreditation Agreement as noted in the Brussels Communiqué

12

The need for an early warning to applicants whether a proposed string would be considered controversial or to raise sensitivities (including geographical names).

At-Large has always been generally against the very principle of gTLD string objections based on "morality and public order".
- ALAC Statement on the Community Working Group Report on Implementation of GNSO New gTLD Recommendation Number 6, 30.10.10


We emphatically call for the complete abolition of the class of objections based on morality and public order. We assert that ICANN has no business being in (or delegating) the role of comparing relative morality and conflicting human rights.
Abolishing the morality and public order class of objection will eliminate the risk to ICANN of bearing responsibility for delegating morality judgment to an inadequate DSRP.
Certain extreme forms of objectionable strings may be addressed through minor modifications to the ''Community'' class of objection. While we fully appreciate the motivation behind this class of objection, we cannot envision any application of it that will result in fewer problems than its abolition.
- Declaration of the At-Large Summit, 03.09