Public Comment Announcement:

Report of Possible Process Options for Further Consideration of the ICM Application for the .XXX sTLD (ends 10 May 10)

Draft ALAC Statement

On the issue of Possible Process Options for Further Consideration of the ICM Application for the .XXX sTLD, the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is concerned with the transparency and accountability of the processes being undertaken. We also note the considerable time taken in and thoroughness of the independent review of this matter and as such the ALAC supports that the process be carried out in an expedient, equitable, and defensible manner taking into account the decision of the independent review panel. We would like to see the issue settled quickly with the necessary transparency.

Regional Statements/Comments

AFRALO

AFRALO supports the ALAC Statement and decided not to submit a separate regional Statement on this consultation.( see email sent on April 24th)

APRALO

Statement drafted by Hong Xue and unanimously supported and endorsed as an APRALO Statement at the meeting of 27/04/2010

APRALO agrees with the statement made by ALAC The .XXX is primarily an issue of procedural justice. ICANN has to follow truthfully the procedures set up by itself. We support ICANN to be a transparent, neutral and effective coordinator of the Internet domain name system, rather than interfering with the issues that are not really in its mandate. However, we do not have an interest in supporting any specific TLD, which we believe is out of the mission of the At-Large community.

EURALO

During the April 20th conference call, EURALO decided to support the ALAC Statement not to submit a separate regional Statement on this consultation.

LACRALO

LACRALO supports the ALAC Statement and decided not to submit a separate regional Statement on this consultation.

NARALO

NARALO Statement drafted by Gareth Shearman

During our most recent NARALO conference call (April 12th, 2010) the consensus of the discussion was that, given the wide spread support for the domain when it was first proposed and that the legal process has now rejected the validity of ICANN’s initial resolution of the matter, ICANN should just approve the request without further unwarranted process.
The consensus of the meeting was that this was a free speech issue and as such the establishment of the domain should not be refused.

I do support the NARALO statement. Additionally I suggest the following change:

"We also note the considerable time taken in and thoroughness of the independent review of this matter and as such the ALAC supports that the process be carried out in an expedient, equitable, and defensible manner, in a manner that respects the decision of the Independent Review Panel."

contributed by patrick@vande-walle.eu on 2010-04-23 11:01:36 GMT

The NARALO consensus was to ask ALAC to support the establishment of the TLD, not simply for a speedy resolution. It was quite clear in our discussions that we do not want a summary rejection.

contributed by evan@telly.org on 2010-04-23 13:30:10 GMT

I do support the ALAC statement as it is now without modification.
Tijani

contributed by tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org on 2010-04-23 14:11:14 GMT

Gareth

I do not believe every member "present on the call considered this to be a free speech issue and as such the establishment of the domain should not be refused." A number of members on the call did not speak to the issue one way or the other, or at least I didn't.

contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2010-04-23 19:25:01 GMT

I say again: I am the only one qualified to tell me what to say or thing. So I have a deep and abiding distaste and distrust for those who would wish to tell me what my sense of right and wrong ought to be. It is a matter of bedrock principle. The NARALO statement has my full support.

Carlton Samuels

contributed by carlton.samuels@gmail.com on 2010-04-24 03:01:55 GMT

Yes to the changes suggested by Patrick.

contributed by carlton.samuels@gmail.com on 2010-04-24 03:04:01 GMT

ALAC statement: I suggest ot mixt the current text of the proposal and the chag supported by Patrick.
"We also note the considerable time taken in and thoroughness of the independent review of this matter and as such the ALAC supports that the process be carried out in an expedient, equitable, and defensible manner, taking into account the decision of the Independent Review Panel."

About the NARALO statement:
One question – the ICANN’s initial resolution was not positive?
If I recall well it was in a second time that it became negative.
Have a look to this document: http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/options-map-26mar10-en.pdf

contributed by sebastien@bachollet.com on 2010-04-24 09:25:21 GMT

after reading the statement, I don't have more argument to add. I support it like it's wroten.

Baudouin

contributed by b.schombe@gmail.com on 2010-04-26 18:20:51 GMT

I support the ALAC statement as it is.

Fatimata

contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2010-04-26 21:56:21 GMT

Thanks all, I second Fatimata about the the ALAC stattement.

otherwise, I would not be available at tomorrow's meeting for family reasons .

Sincerely,
Hawa
Submitted by Hawa Diakite on Monday, April 26, 2010 5:21 PM

contributed by heidi.ullrich@icann.org on 2010-04-27 01:36:35 GMT

I have made my opinions known on the EURALO calls and unfortunately I won't be able to make the ALAC call but some of my colleagues at EURALO will so I am sure they will provide adequate input into this process.

My own view is that using the "free speech issue" is unwise because it actually refers to content rather than process. Otherwise, the free speech issue could be use in, say, .nazi - the free speech issue being entirely a Western Democracy concept and not being defined technically in any way.

Secondly, I also believe that this whole matter is a complete can of worms. It is a commercial and contractual issue which uses any argument (on both sides) and takes no prisoners. Does ALAC really want to get involved and take sides in this?
I would have preferred a more neutral statement expressing At Large's wish that the matter gets resolved in a swift and amicable manner.

Thirdly, some members of the community have raised the concern that that the .XXX case might put ICANN on the brink of insolvency.
This has been a concern of mine for a long time. That is a systemic issue, an Achilles' heel which I find untenable and which I hope we can address in the long term. In my book, if you are in a position where you can be bullied, you're not equitable and independent.

Olivier

contributed by ocl@gih.com on 2010-04-27 08:54:18 GMT

ICANN is criticized for being judgmental and for going beyond its role on this XXX issue. ICANN is criticized for evaluation of anticipated content in its hesitation. But in reality, ICANN ought to be criticized for facilitating content discrimination ONLY IF it rushes into .xxx and takes a pro-xxx stand. That is because, allowing XXX would make it possible for the whole world to discriminate different domain spaces for content. A few nations or regions may choose to block a whole domain space if it finds objectionable content concentrated on a certain domain space such as xxx.

If .xxx is allowed, a .aa (all audiences) and a .child is theoretically possible and on these domain spaces also the content can be anticipated to be discriminated (content of a certain category or class) and a regulatory authority might exercise judgement and choose to allow .aa and .child and NOT .xxx, or may bring up issues such as what qualifies to be in the .aa space and what qualifies to be in the .child space.

contributed by isolatedn@gmail.com on 2010-04-27 15:37:02 GMT

  • No labels