Introductory Note from Evan Leibovitch, Chair of the ALAC gTLD WG
Hello everyone,
As you may know, one of the biggest complaints that At-Large has had with the process of allocating new generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) has been a clause in the Applicant Guidebook referring to objections based on "Morality and Public Order". The At-Large objection to it was a significant component of the gTLD commentary that was developed at the At-Large Summit, and opposition to the "MAPO objection" has remained ALAC policy to this day.
Apparently our distaste for this was shared by ICANN's Government Advisory Committee (GAC), though for different reasons. A common effort to revise the MAPO approach was discussed informally between ALAC and GAC members at the Nairobi ICANN meeting, and more formally at the ICANN Brussels meeting. As a result, together with the GNSO -- ICANN's main policy-making body on gTLDs
-- a joint working group was created to to to find common ground on this very controversial issue.
To many peoples' delight, this joint working group achieved a phenomenal (in my opinion) amount of consensus between the three groups (ALAC, GAC and
GNSO) which included some *very* divergent points of view. We didn't agree on everything, but we did agree on some very specific points. Most important of these points was to recommend against the use of Dispute Resolution Service Providers as described in the current Application Guidebook<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-clean-28may10-en.pdf>(sections
3.1.2.3 and 3.4.3). This has been replaced with a complete consensus that ultimate decisions on contentious strings rests with the Board alone (assisted by independent experts offering opinion on applicability of international law and treaty).
The full recommendations of this working group, which provide far more detailed background than I have provided above, can be read in its report to the Board<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/report-rec6-cwg-21sep10-en.pdf>.
The group as a whole intensely disliked even the term "Morality and Public Order", and as a result it was generally referred to as the "Rec 6 WG" (referring to Recommendation 6 of the GNSO's gTLD creation policy which referred to this kind of objection).
ALAC has already endorsed the report, but I am asking this At-Large Working Group about the desirability to add further comment -- as a minority report to emphasise our point of view on areas of divergence, and/or as a further positive re-enforcement that underscores the community's widespread preference for the current WG proposals instead of the existing process.
Further affecting our decision may be the Board resolution from its recent retreat on this issue<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.9>:
The Board acknowledges receipt of the Rec6CWG report. This is a difficult issue, and the work of the community in developing these recommendations is appreciated. The Board has discussed this important issue for the past three years.*
The Board agrees that ultimate responsibility for the new gTLD program rests with the Board. The Board, however, wishes to rely on the determinations of experts regarding these issues.
The Board will accept the Rec6 CWG recommendations that are not inconsistent with the existing process, as this can be achieved before the opening of the first gTLD application round, and will work to resolve any inconsistencies. Staff will consult with the Board for
further guidance as required.
This wording is vague, and by some interpretations it enables the Board to repudiate some of the important points of consensus. Accordingly, we may want to emphasize the broad community support behind the WG's initiative.
I welcome members of this -- the At-Large working group on ICANN gTLD policy to discuss the report here. as well as to help draft a satatement which ALAC would be asked to endorse and and send as official community comment.
If requested, I am certainly amenable to holding a community conference call on this issue attended by senior members of the WG as well as At-Large participants in it.
Thanks for your participation and help.
Evan Leibovitch
Chair,
ALAC gTLD Working Group.
