- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Google proposes to open its "closed generics"
by Evan Leibovitch March 11, 2013

March 11, 2013

Google has promised, in a letter to Fadi, that if it gets custody of certain strings considered to be closed generics, it will make subdomains under them publicly available. It probably will not, however, use the traditional indirect channel of going through registrars. This is exactly the kind of hybrid approach anticipated by the ALAC statement on the issue, and why I believed it prudent not to reject the concept out of hand. http://m.techcrunch.com/2013/03/09/if-it-gets-them-google-may-open-search-a… - Evan (via mobile)

2 1

IMPORTANT: VOTE ANNOUNCEMENTS on gTLD Objections
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond March 9, 2013

March 9, 2013

Dear ALAC members, by now, you should have received your ballots, all 4 of them, to vote on each of the Applications for the ".HEALTH" string. BEFORE VOTING, I invite you to review all of the information at hand for each of these applications. The Conference Call we had today discussed the details of the context in which those objections are being considered and explained where all of the information was. I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO CONSULT THE RECORDING OF THIS CALL BEFORE GOING ANY FURTHER. This is linked from the call Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/8JNwAg On this agenda page, you will also find the following: - links to a summary of RALO advice for EACH of the .HEALTH applications (Section 3: read all of the comments on each of the WIKI sub-pages, for each application because this is where Dev has posted the correspondence received) 1. Applicant "DotHealth, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string <https://community.icann.org/x/t4xwAg> 2. Applicant ""Goose Fest, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string <https://community.icann.org/x/v4xwAg> 3. Applicant "dot Health Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string <https://community.icann.org/x/xYxwAg> 4. Applicant "Afilias Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string <https://community.icann.org/x/y4xwAg> - a review of the replies received by RALOs who had the most discussion about the matter (Section 4) - A review of the PICs - Public Interest Commitment; of the GAC early Warnings; of the applications etc. - a link to the At-Large New gTLD Review Group mailing list archive. This will allow you to be up to date with all correspondence received from the applicants, as well as other organisations supporting or opposing the objections. This makes for an interesting reading. Please look for the "View by Date" for February and March 2013. It is worth noting that ALL CORRESPONDENCE is on each one of the WIKI pages where Dev has posted them. Before voting, PLEASE READ ALL OF THIS ADVICE. Take a *couple of hours* this week-end to make up your mind. If in doubt, ask your colleagues on the ALAC list. And I repeat: please listen to the call recording, if you have missed the call. Several very important questions were answered. Also have a look at the Chat record. Staff have submitted a priority request for the transcript of the call to be made available to us as soon as possible and will announce it as soon as it is received. Have a good week-end, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair

3 2

Material for review by the ALAC regarding objection statements to 4 new gTLD applications
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh March 9, 2013

March 9, 2013

Dear All, Here is a summary of the information available for review by the ALAC regarding the RALO advice on the objection statements on community grounds to 4 new gTLD applications. Many of this information were linked on the Friday March 8 2013 ALAC's call (https://community.icann.org/x/8JNwAg) but are repeated here for reference. All of the wiki pages with the objection statements against : - applicant "DotHealth, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/t4xwAg) - applicant "Goose Fest, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/v4xwAg) - applicant "dot Health Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/xYxwAg) - applicant "Afilias Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/y4xwAg) have been updated with - links to applicants' Public Interest Commitments (PICs) - correspondence received by the gTLD Review Group over the past 48 hours, including * letters from individual applicants, * letters of support for objections from organisations and emails from the WHO clarifying issues raised on the NARALO list. With many of the correspondence received (even today), directed at the objection statement against Stable Tone Limited" for the "健康" string, the wiki page at https://community.icann.org/x/0YxwAg was also updated, for reference, even though this is no longer under ALAC's consideration, as per RALO advice. Also, there was discussion by the RALOs on the applicants and the objection statements and can be reviewed on the RALO mailing list archives: NARALO: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/2013-March/thread.html APRALO: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/apac-discuss/2013/thread.html LACRALO: https://community.icann.org/x/Q5FwAg (wiki page) gTLD Review Group List archives : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/newgtldrg/ (for reference, but again all correspondence regarding the applications and objection statements have been posted on the individual wiki pages) Also, the objection statements are on community objection grounds. The community objection grounds page at https://community.icann.org/x/QgkQAg lists the 4 tests as specified in the Applicant GuideBook that the objection statement must meet for the objection to prevail. Also for useful reading on community objection grounds: Circle ID article: "Thinking Carefully About New gTLD Objections: Community (3 of 4)" http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130219_thinking_carefully_about_new_gtld_ob… Independent Objector's (IO) comments on controversial applications: http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/the-independen… The IO comments shows the reasoning behind his decisions as to whether to file objections on community or limited public interest concerns. Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh gTLD RG chair

1 0

Important - For the 8 March ALAC Meeting on .health Objections - A view on key questions prior to ALAC vote
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim March 8, 2013

March 8, 2013

Dear ALAC Colleagues, In anticipation of the ALAC Teleconference scheduled for Friday 8th March 2013 at 1800 UTC to consider "RALO Advice Regarding Objection Statements on the *.health* String Applications," I am sharing my views and position below as I am unsure if I would be sufficiently lucid to discuss such an important issue at 2am my time. I anticipate 2 important questions will be raised for discussion (prior to the ALAC vote on whether or not to advance the objections against the 4 applications for “.health” as per regional advice supported by 3/5 RALOs): 1) Does the ALAC have standing to assert and file community objections? - This question has been raised by parties who wish to question the legitimacy of the ALAC in terms of our role in the objection process. 2) Should the ALAC consider the submitted Public Interest Commitments (PIC) by the applicants in making its decision (i.e., vote)? * On Question 1: Does the ALAC have standing to assert and file community objections?* In my view, the ALAC absolutely has standing to assert and file community objections. The role of the ALAC is to represent the interests of individual Internet users (see ICANN Bylaws). Our community is thus the “community of Internet users” around the world and within this community are: a) Individual Internet users who are organized and involved formally in the ICANN system (eg., ALSes); b) Individual Internet users who are organized, but not formally involved in the ICANN system. c) Individual Internet users who are not organized in specific groups and are not formally involved in the ICANN system. All of these people fall within the bounds of our "community" and we are mandated to represent their interests. The ALAC structure itself is designed to take into account this diversity in our community. We have ALAC members who are elected by each region to represent the collective ALS interests and we have ALAC members like myself, who are appointed by the ICANN Nominating Committee, who are independent of ALSes. The community that I represent (apart from my adopted home of APRALO) comprises those who are not formally represented in the ICANN system and these users (whether organized or not) may be focused on a variety of issue interest such as health, child safety, etc. In terms of whether or not the ALAC has standing to object on behalf of IMIA. IMIA falls under the category of individual Internet users who are organized, but not formally involved in ICANN. Groups like IMIA can freely enter the ICANN system when their interests are affected and the system is flexible enough to accommodate that via the ALAC and its "community", which is a strength. *On Question 2: Should the ALAC consider the submitted Public Interest Commitments (PIC) by the applicants in making its decision (i.e., vote)?*** Although I am inclined to view the submission of PICs by applicants as generally a positive sign), I am hesitant to consider them in my decision-making/vote on the objections at this point in time. My reasons are as follows: 1. The timeline for the At-Large objections process never factored the PICs process (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31178691/alac-facts-object… ). RALOs did not have sufficient time to consider them in their vote and the ALAC does not have sufficient time to review carefully the contents of each PIC against the original applications before voting. 2. The PICs currently have significant weaknesses: a) enforceability – the PICSDRP framework currently does not exist and has yet to be developed where the applicants expect that it will be developed via “consensus policy,” which could swing in their favor; and b) the commitments are self-defined by the applicants where “the registry operator may choose not to nominate any element of their application that are PICs, or nominate only those elements of the application that the registry operator wants considered as a commitment.” The PICs thus may contain crucial gaps in terms of public interest and end user protection. For an elaboration of these concerns, see draft statement on “At-Large Revised New gTLD Registry Agreement Including Additional Public Interest Commitments Specification” by Holly Raiche ( https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Revised+New+gTLD… ). Holly has also highlighted that ICANN currently has no oversight in addressing these gaps based on the existing arrangements. Based on the above, I am inclined to not consider the PICs at this point in time. When the PICs come under proper review, the ALAC will have an opportunity to comment. Best regards, Rinalia

5 5

Material for review by the ALAC regarding objection statements to 4 new gTLD applications
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh March 8, 2013

March 8, 2013

Dear All, Just a summary of the information available for review by the ALAC regarding the RALO advice on the objection statements on community grounds to 4 new gTLD applications. All of the wiki pages with the objection statements against : - applicant "DotHealth, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/t4xwAg) - applicant "Goose Fest, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/v4xwAg) - applicant "dot Health Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/xYxwAg) - applicant "Afilias Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/y4xwAg) have been updated with - links to applicants' Public Interest Commitments (PICs) - correspondence received by the gTLD RG (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/newgtldrg/) over the past 48 hours, including * letters from individual applicants, * letters of support for objections from organisations and emails from the WHO clarifying issues raised on the NARALO list With many of the correspondence received (even today), directed at the objection statement against Stable Tone Limited" for the "健康" string, the wiki page at https://community.icann.org/x/0YxwAg was also updated, for reference. Also, there was discussion by the RALOs on the applicants and the objection statements and can be reviewed on the RALO mailing list archives: NARALO : http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/2013-March/thread.html APRALO : http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/apac-discuss/2013/thread.html LACRALO : https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40931651 (wiki page) Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh gTLD RG chair

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Important - For the 8 March ALAC Meeting on .health Objections - A view on key questions prior to ALAC vote
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim March 8, 2013

March 8, 2013

Dear Ed, Irrespective of the weaknesses of the PIC, it is important that a PIC is submitted by applicants as a means of holding them accountable. What exists now is a start, something for the ALAC to work on in collaboration with the GAC in making sure that the PICs become enforceable and comprehensive. The APRALO regional advice was that it votes NO to the objection on .jiankang (.健康) provided that Stable Tone submits a PIC. Stable Tone has done that. To me, this satisfies that precondition. So the APRALO vote would not change. Best regards, Rinalia On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com>wrote: > Evan: > > I know the fact but I would like to know the thinking process here. The > suggestion by Rinalia is geared to all in ALAC and will be weighted as part > of our deliberations for the rest of the objections. In my personal case I > deferred to APRALO on their IDN string decision which was "No" with the > caveat. If they had indicated YES, I would have indicated YES too. I do not > know if the APRALO vote would have had the same effect in others too. > > -ed > > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> The question is not really relevant anymore. The IDN objection is now >> dead (as far as the ALAC process is concerned) because it did not get the >> support of three regions. Only the four Latin string objections are still >> being considered. >> >> - Evan (via mobile) >> On 2013-03-08 10:25 AM, "Eduardo Diaz" <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Rinalia: >>> >>> What are your thoughts about the "No" vote from APRALO for the .jiankang >>> (.健康) which was caveated by their submitted PIC which you are suggesting >>> not to consider during the ALAC discussions? In other words, will the >>> "No" >>> vote will change to a "Yes" vote if the PIC is not to be considered at >>> the >>> end? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> -ed >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < >>> rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > Dear ALAC Colleagues, >>> > >>> > In anticipation of the ALAC Teleconference scheduled for Friday 8th >>> March >>> > 2013 at 1800 UTC to consider "RALO Advice Regarding Objection >>> Statements on >>> > the *.health* String Applications," I am sharing my views and position >>> > below as I am unsure if I would be sufficiently lucid to discuss such >>> an >>> > important issue at 2am my time. >>> > >>> > I anticipate 2 important questions will be raised for discussion >>> (prior to >>> > the ALAC vote on whether or not to advance the objections against the 4 >>> > applications for “.health” as per regional advice supported by 3/5 >>> RALOs): >>> > >>> > 1) Does the ALAC have standing to assert and file community >>> objections? - >>> > This question has been raised by parties who wish to question the >>> > legitimacy of the ALAC in terms of our role in the objection process. >>> > >>> > 2) Should the ALAC consider the submitted Public Interest Commitments >>> (PIC) >>> > by the applicants in making its decision (i.e., vote)? >>> > >>> > * >>> > On Question 1: Does the ALAC have standing to assert and file community >>> > objections?* >>> > >>> > In my view, the ALAC absolutely has standing to assert and file >>> community >>> > objections. The role of the ALAC is to represent the interests of >>> > individual Internet users (see ICANN Bylaws). Our community is thus >>> the >>> > “community of Internet users” around the world and within this >>> community >>> > are: >>> > >>> > a) Individual Internet users who are organized and involved >>> formally in >>> > the ICANN system (eg., ALSes); >>> > >>> > b) Individual Internet users who are organized, but not formally >>> > involved in the ICANN system. >>> > >>> > c) Individual Internet users who are not organized in specific >>> groups >>> > and are not formally involved in the ICANN system. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > All of these people fall within the bounds of our "community" and we >>> are >>> > mandated to represent their interests. The ALAC structure itself is >>> > designed to take into account this diversity in our community. We have >>> > ALAC members who are elected by each region to represent the >>> collective ALS >>> > interests and we have ALAC members like myself, who are appointed by >>> the >>> > ICANN Nominating Committee, who are independent of ALSes. The >>> community >>> > that I represent (apart from my adopted home of APRALO) comprises >>> those who >>> > are not formally represented in the ICANN system and these users >>> (whether >>> > organized or not) may be focused on a variety of issue interest such as >>> > health, child safety, etc. >>> > >>> > In terms of whether or not the ALAC has standing to object on behalf of >>> > IMIA. IMIA falls under the category of individual Internet users who >>> are >>> > organized, but not formally involved in ICANN. Groups like IMIA can >>> freely >>> > enter the ICANN system when their interests are affected and the >>> system is >>> > flexible enough to accommodate that via the ALAC and its "community", >>> which >>> > is a strength. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > *On Question 2: Should the ALAC consider the submitted Public Interest >>> > Commitments (PIC) by the applicants in making its decision (i.e., >>> vote)?*** >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Although I am inclined to view the submission of PICs by applicants as >>> > generally a positive sign), I am hesitant to consider them in my >>> > decision-making/vote on the objections at this point in time. My >>> reasons >>> > are as follows: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 1. The timeline for the At-Large objections process never factored >>> the >>> > PICs process (see >>> > >>> > >>> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31178691/alac-facts-object… >>> > ). RALOs did not have sufficient time to consider them in their vote >>> and >>> > the ALAC does not have sufficient time to review carefully the >>> contents of >>> > each PIC against the original applications before voting. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 2. The PICs currently have significant weaknesses: a) >>> enforceability – >>> > the PICSDRP framework currently does not exist and has yet to be >>> developed >>> > where the applicants expect that it will be developed via “consensus >>> > policy,” which could swing in their favor; and b) the commitments are >>> > self-defined by the applicants where “the registry operator may choose >>> not >>> > to nominate any element of their application that are PICs, or nominate >>> > only those elements of the application that the registry operator wants >>> > considered as a commitment.” The PICs thus may contain crucial gaps in >>> > terms of public interest and end user protection. For an elaboration >>> of >>> > these concerns, see draft statement on “At-Large Revised New gTLD >>> Registry >>> > Agreement Including Additional Public Interest Commitments >>> Specification” >>> > by Holly Raiche ( >>> > >>> > >>> https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Revised+New+gTLD… >>> > ). Holly has also highlighted that ICANN currently has no oversight in >>> > addressing these gaps based on the existing arrangements. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Based on the above, I am inclined to not consider the PICs at this >>> point in >>> > time. When the PICs come under proper review, the ALAC will have an >>> > opportunity to comment. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Best regards, >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Rinalia >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > ALAC mailing list >>> > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>> > >>> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>> > ALAC Working Wiki: >>> > >>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or >>> >>> subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named >>> addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, >>> disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email >>> by >>> mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ALAC mailing list >>> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>> >>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>> ALAC Working Wiki: >>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>> >> > > > -- > *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or > subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named > addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, > disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by > mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] [ALAC-ExCom] ALAC and .HEALTH
by Avri Doria March 7, 2013

March 7, 2013

Opps, sent from wrong address first time around. Hi, First apologies for forwarding the last message to the whole At-Large list, I fumble fingered thew address. I meant to copy the ALAC list as those are the voters. Second: The secretariat has graciously fixed the content issue with the Feb 12 meeting transcript https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31169021/20120228_ALAC-en.… In that transcript, the following appears: Avri Doria: ... The other pending issue in all of that is the issue I brought up last time I spoke on it, and I don’t know if I was supposed to do anything beyond it like send an email confirming it; but there was the whole issue of the scope when it comes to community-based objections, which is one of the two types that ALAC can make. And we talked about it last time that the scope went from very narrow – meaning something that affected ALAC – to slightly wider, something that affected the RALOs and ALSes; to something wider, something that affected anything that ALSes could care about in terms of their local community, etc. So now that’s something that was sent as a scope question to you all. We’ve had in our last meeting one recommendation that sort of said there’s really no reason to reply to that because ALAC will have to approve whether to make an objection on each individual case and that the decision will be made at that point. Now, I think that might be a little late to not have a guideline from ALAC on what the scope is and certainly that’s not— [background conversation] Avri Doria: Anyhow, I think I’m just about finished. So anyway, that’s where we’re at. You’ll have something to review all things being equal, and I still have a pending question for you all; whether you— [background conversation] Avri Doria: Thank you. [background conversation] Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay, go ahead Avri. Avri Doria: I think I’m actually done. I spoke for quite a while going into this late time of the meeting, so I guess if there’s questions… In going back to At-Large New gTLD WG meetings: In https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+gTLDs+WG++06-02-2012+Transc… Avri Doria: Okay great, thank you. Okay, anything else on grounds for objection? I’m just reading it as I go along. Okay, any issue with moving on to “Who can file an objection to a gTLD application?” Okay, in that one, as summarized there’s a repeating of what are the objections. Then there’s the “ALAC only has standing to object if you feel the application is of limited public (inaudible) objections or on community grounds if ALAC/At-Large is the community that is explicitly or implicitly targeted.” Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Avri, I have a comment on that. Avri Doria: Okay. Dev Anand Teelucksingh: For those who are looking at this, this is part of the first set of notes I did for the night of January 20, 2012. So I forgot to update the notes which I did… If you go down to the “Overview Summary of Draft Objection Process,” I did mention the concerns regarding community grounds – that discussion is ongoing as to what extent the ALAC is standing to object to it, etc. So that is further down on the page. I just forgot to update the earlier text. In https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+gTLDs+WG+13-02-2012+Transcr… one finds the following in a longer exchange: Alan Greenberg: Thank you. On that last issue, we really don’t have to worry about what the scope is until the time comes to start formulating objections. It doesn’t even have to be, our procedure doesn’t change based on what the scope is so there’s plenty of time to do that. We need not to forget it but there’s plenty of time. At this point, I think I have covered the ground that shows that the issue was discussed both in the group and in ALAC. and while I still can't produce the 'smoking gun' that indicates this issue will be dealt with when we get there, I think the lack of any quotable solution indicates the possibility that this issue remains to be decided by you all. Again, apologies for fumble fingering and for the info dump. I remain available to answer any question anyone may have on this issue. avri Begin forwarded message: > From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> > Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-ExCom] ALAC and .HEALTH > Date: 7 March 2013 15:41:00 EST > To: ICANN ALAC Executive Commitee list <alac-excom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Cc: At-Large GTLD WG List <gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Reply-To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > On 7 Mar 2013, at 14:18, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >> On 7 March 2013 13:15, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: >> >> While people generally understood the basis for an ALS prompting a community objection if they were going to be harmed as they are part of our At0-Large community, many never understood the notion of the ALAC right to object on behalf of any community in the world. >> >> Even a most superficial reading of the ICANN bylaws related to the status of At-Large should answer those people. >> >> >> So we asked ALAC, what is the allowable scope? The answer we got was we will cross that bridge when we get to it. >> >> >> Reference, please. I honestly don't recall such a debate, or the need for one. >> > > These references all speak of ALAC ability to file a Community Objection on behalf of an ALS for harm done to itself as a community. > > https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/Blue+Sky+Exercise > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2011q4/000573.html > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2011q4/000588.html > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2012q1/000634.html > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2012q1/000635.html > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2012q1/000643.html > > In terms of ALAC Meeting transcripts: > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+2012.01.24+Transcription+-… > > Avri Doria: Yes and I want to thank Dev for doing that. I wanted to add just a couple of points and a question to you all as ALAC. First of all Dev has been putting an amazing amount of work into this. This is still a draft that the intention is within the next week or two within the group to get it to a stable point where it can be sent to the RALOs for further review and a review cycle and an update cycle. So, I just wanted to make sure that I said that. > > In terms of the beginning of this there was a discussion over the scope of community objection. And the scope of community objection ranges from the very narrow interpretation of it's only if it's the ALAC community, the At-Large community, that's being targeted by the application. There's a slightly wider view that sort of says it’s not just ALAC or At-Large, it's any of the components of the At-Large so to speak the RALOs and the ALSs. > > The most expansive region of it is as At-Large responsible for the user community as it faces ICANN policy implementation etc. that basically championing any of those in an At-Large relevant topic area should be included. Now this is a question that the Working Group itself can't really answer. It's a question A for you all to sort of say what understanding does ALAC as an advisory committee have on this. And then probably a secondary step if you take anything other than the most narrow interpretation is confirming that, stating that, declaring that, in any way that is appropriate to ALAC making its point and declaring if understanding of what ALAC community is. > > The last point I wanted to make is that on some of these things there's still some technical issues that we're following-up for all of that to be there. We obviously are on a crash course to get this done because it has to go through the review cycle, the upset cycle, and basically go through whatever approval cycle it needs to go through before the objection process starts. So before that end of April date when all the applications are announced and I assume the approval and notification to ICANN or its staff as to what it is you're doing needs to happen before that. So thanks. > > --- > > I currently can't find the place where I got the answer I interpreted as " we will cross that bridge when we get there". Certainly those specific words were not said, but what I recall being said, but can't find it the message, that we can deal with this issue later if we need to. > > > Then again, I can't find any answer to my question fo ALAC of Jan 24. Also I find that: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+2012.02.28+-+Transcription… is empty, so it is hard to check. > > I am not sure if I brought it up in the December meeting (I think I might have), but https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+20.12.11+Transcription+EN is also empty. > > In any case the fragments I have found in this brief search indicate: > > a. it was an issue in the Wg > b. the prevailing opinion was that the scope should include ALS community harm in scope > c. there was uncertainty about a wider scope that that > d. there seems to be no answer on the issue of wider scope, leaving that issue open for you all to deal with now. > > I will keep looking, but given the press for time, wanted to pass on what I could find > > > In sad that bringing this up angers some of you enough to make scary noises in my direction. But I think it is important that any decision that ALAC makes be fully informed. In this case, being fully informed means understanding that this Objection may not be in scope for ALAC to make. > > avri > > > > On 7 Mar 2013, at 14:18, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >> On 7 March 2013 13:15, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: >> >>> While people generally understood the basis for an ALS prompting a community objection if they were going to be harmed as they are part of our At0-Large community, many never understood the notion of the ALAC right to object on behalf of any community in the world. >>> >> Even a most superficial reading of the ICANN bylaws related to the status of At-Large should answer those people. >> >> >>> So we asked ALAC, what is the allowable scope? The answer we got was we will cross that bridge when we get to it. >>> >> >> Reference, please. I honestly don't recall such a debate, or the need for one. >> >>> Well the bridge stands in front of you and I suggest you give it serious consideration before approving these objections. >> >> Um, exactly who here is not taking this seriously? >> >> (If only all the issues in ICANN attracted such attention and thought. But this one, because money is at stake, is somehow more special? Pfftt.) >> >> >>> I personally agree with their note, and do not think ALAC has standing to object i this case. >>> >> I started as also being a champion of laissez faire. The more time goes on, the more I am inclined to support the objections. The counter arguments have been far from convincing. >> >> >>> I wish I had thought of it yesterday when NARALO was discussing the issue, >> >> >> Why? The point had already been made, and NARALO chose not to advance the objection. However, three other regions did. >> >>> Also, of course, when you write a letter, you include all the possible arguments. There is not time for serialization. I think deriding them for that reason is a bit much. >>> >> You're right, I guess, in that there are much better reasons for derision. >> >> >>> I advise great care in your next steps. >> >> IMO this wording constitutes a threat -- unless you have ANY evidence that this issue is being addressed without care anywhere in the community. >> >> The implication -- that agreeing with the objections is somehow not giving the issue sufficient care and attention -- is offensive, >> >> >>> Those who indicated this Objection might actually injure ALAc's reputation might have had good reason to say what they said. It may begin to look like ALAC is being manipulated by a bitter past applicant who did not apply this time, who has not argued that there is a community, and is not an ALS member. >> >> And I might be inclined to say "screw it, the Internet will not fall over if one controversial string is held up for a round while the various parties work it out.". That does not harm our reputation one shred. >> >> In fact, I am being more inclined to say that with each email I see on the matter. >> >> - Evan > > > > On 7 Mar 2013, at 12:12, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >> Curious choice of recipients for the letter. I understand Olivier and Dev, >> but why me and Avri? >> >> Oh well, I'm sufficiently fascinated: "You don't have standing to object. >> But just in case you DO.... " >> >> Precious. >> >> - Evan (via mobile) > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >

1 0

Summary of RALO advice to the ALAC regarding the 5 objection statements to new gTLD applications
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh March 7, 2013

March 7, 2013

Dear All, As per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new gTLD application, (see one page PDF at http://bit.ly/how-ALAC-files-objection-to-new-gTLD ), RALOs have submitted advice to the ALAC on the objection statements on community grounds to 5 new gTLD applications. These objection statements were prepared by the gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG) based on the outcomes of its review and discussion of comments received by February 8, 2013 (see http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/2013q1/009493.html) The 5 applications and objection statements, including the comments received by the gTLD RG on the applications can be found on the workspace at https://community.icann.org/x/soxwAg with 5 separate wiki pages for each new gTLD application, the objection statement and the comments received by the gTLD RG. The RALO's advice to the ALAC were in the form of answers to the 5 questions listed at https://community.icann.org/x/t45wAg with the possible answers of either * Yes, support the filing of the objection statement by the ALAC against applicant, * No, NOT support the filing of the objection statement by the ALAC against applicant OR * Abstain Objection statements NOT supported by at least three RALOs will not be considered by the ALAC. For those objection statements that are supported by three or more RALOs, the ALAC will decide whether to file such objection statements to the Dispute Resolution Service Provider (DRSP) before the end of the objection period on March 13, 2013. Summary of RALO advice: 3 out of 5 RALOs supported the filing of the objection statement by the ALAC against applicant "DotHealth, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/t4xwAg) 3 out of 5 RALOs supported the filing of the objection statement by the ALAC against applicant "“Goose Fest, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/v4xwAg) 3 out of 5 RALOs supported the filing of the objection statement by the ALAC against applicant "dot Health Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/xYxwAg) 3 out of 5 RALOs supported the filing of the objection statement by the ALAC against applicant "Afilias Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string ( https://community.icann.org/x/y4xwAg ) 1 out of 5 RALOs supported the filing of the objection statement by the ALAC support the filing of the objection statement by the ALAC against applicant "Stable Tone Limited" for the ".健康" (jiankang) string Therefore, the ALAC will have to consider the filing of the objection statement against: - applicant "DotHealth, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/t4xwAg) - applicant "“Goose Fest, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/v4xwAg) - applicant "dot Health Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/xYxwAg) - applicant "Afilias Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string ( https://community.icann.org/x/y4xwAg) As the objection statement against the applicant "Stable Tone Limited" for the for the ".健康" (jiankang) string failed to get RALO support, this statement will not be considered by the ALAC. An ALAC meeting to consider the advice by the RALOs is scheduled for Friday March 8 2013 https://community.icann.org/x/8JNwAg Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh gTLD RG chair

4 3

Re: [ALAC] [EURO-Discuss] IMPORTANT: At-Large Objection Statements posted for RALO review - deadline for RALO advice to ALAC is now March 6 2013
by Wolf Ludwig March 7, 2013

March 7, 2013

Dear all, from the few responses I received over the last 24 hours (Avri, Adela, Bill, Adam), the situation is not much clearer on such a complex issue and we are far from having a "community based position". Under the given circumstances and as indicated before, EURALO *abstains* on the support of the five objections. Thanks for your consideration and best regards, Wolf Ludwig EURALO Chair Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote Thu, 07 Mar 2013 08:03: >Dear EURALO members, > >comments are particularly important in this since it is part of the >ALAC's first ever mission that involves direct operational issues. With >issues of health being very high on the agenda in Europe, it would be >sad if there was no advice from the region. >Kind regards, > >Olivier > >On 07/03/2013 01:58, Wolf Ludwig wrote: >> Hi Avri, >> >> thanks for raising the issue here and your advice what is much appreciated. There have been prior announcements on this list regarding RALO positions and potential objection statements against the new gTLD .health applicants -- but no response, recommendation or the like from our members so far, as usual. And there was no decision taken by the leadership because I am hesitating to forward my personal POV what does not necessarily represent the POV of our members or a portion of them at least. For these reasons, I tend to go for an abstention on all five applicants -- what is politically not a good solution but better than a *non community based* one. >> >> But I am also open for a NO vote on all of the five objections, as you suggested, if there is any further support in this direction. Any further advice will be much appreciated! >> >> Thanks and regards, >> Wolf >> >> >> Avri Doria wrote Wed, 6 Mar 2013 15:14: >>> Hi, >>> >>> We do not seem to have a discussion going on on these. Perhaps the leadership has already decided. >>> >>> I would like to repeat arguments I have made elsewhere _against_ support of these Objections. >>> >>> I think the most important issue for a Community Objection of Harm, is for there to be a Community that is claiming its identity and claiming that it would be harmed by the existence of such a gTLD. >>> >>> In this case, I do not see any Community standing up and declaring we are the Health Community and we think .health will harm us. >>> >>> I therefore suggest that EURALO vote NO on all of five objections. >>> >>> cheers, >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4 Mar 2013, at 01:44, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Please note that the objection statement against the applicant "dot >>>> Health Limited" for the ".health" string >>>> (https://community.icann.org/x/xYxwAg) and the objection statement >>>> against the applicant "Stable Tone Limited" for the "健康" ("jiankang") >>>> string (https://community.icann.org/x/0YxwAg) was updated on March 1 >>>> 2013 to remove incorrect references to other applicants in these >>>> statements. The updated objection statements can be found on the >>>> respective wiki pages. >>>> >>>> On the gTLD RG call with the RALO officers on February 28 2013, an >>>> abstain option was added, instead of just a "Yes" or "No" answer for >>>> RALO. >>>> The RALO advice to the ALAC requires answers to the 5 questions listed >>>> at https://community.icann.org/x/t45wAg >>>> >>>> Finally, given clarification by ICANN's new gTLD staff as to the >>>> process by which funding from ICANN is made available to the ALAC, the >>>> RALO's answers to the 5 questions at >>>> https://community.icann.org/x/t45wAg can be sent to the ALAC by March >>>> 6 2013, 23:59 UTC. >>>> >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> >>>> Dev Anand Teelucksingh >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:06 PM, ICANN At-Large Staff >>>> <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> Please see an important message being sent on behalf of Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Chair of the At-Large new gTLD Review Group: >>>>> >>>>> ** >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> As per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new gTLD application, (see one page PDF at http://bit.ly/how-ALAC-files-objection-to-new-gTLD ), the new gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG) have posted objection statements on community grounds to 5 new gTLD applications for Regional At-Large Organisation (RALO) review and advice to the ALAC. >>>>> >>>>> The gTLD RG drafted the statements based on the outcomes of its review and discussion of comments received by February 8, 2013 (see http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/2013q1/009493.html) >>>>> >>>>> All of the objection statements are on community objection grounds. The community objection grounds page at https://community.icann.org/x/QgkQAg lists four tests that would enable the Dispute Resolution Service Provider hearing the objection to determine whether there is substantial opposition from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be >>>>> targeted. Note also that ALL four tests must be met for the objection to prevail. >>>>> >>>>> The 5 applications and objection statements, including the comments received by the gTLD RG on the applications can be found on the workspace at https://community.icann.org/x/soxwAg with 5 separate wiki pages for each new gTLD application, the objection statement and the comments received by the gTLD RG. Members of At-Large are invited to discuss and post questions or comments on these wiki pages. >>>>> >>>>> All RALOs must review EACH of the 5 gTLD applications and the associated information (objection statement, comments) on the wiki pages and decide if the objection statement drafted by the gTLD RG group supports the criterion for community objection. >>>>> >>>>> The RALO cannot modify any of the 5 objection statements, but must advise the ALAC as to whether the RALO EITHER: >>>>> 1) supports the objection statement being filed by the ALAC against the new gTLD application OR >>>>> 2) NOT support the objection statement being filed by the ALAC against the new gTLD application. >>>>> >>>>> This advice for each of the 5 objection statements must be sent to the ALAC by March 5, 2013, 23:59 UTC so that the ALAC can review the RALO advice before the end of the objection period on March 13, 2013. >>>>> >>>>> A conference call is tentatively scheduled on Thursday, February 28, 2013 (exact time will be confirmed by At-Large Staff) is being planned for RALO officers with the gTLD RG members to provide an overview of the process and to answer any questions they may have as to what is expected by the RALOs as per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new >>>>> gTLD application. At-Large members are welcome to attend this call. >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> Dev Anand Teelucksingh >>>>> >>>>> ** >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, and Julia Charvolen >>>>> ICANN Policy Staff in support of the ALAC >>>>> E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> EURO-Discuss mailing list >>>> EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss >>>> >>>> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> EURO-Discuss mailing list >>> EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss >>> >>> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org >>> >>> >> EuroDIG Secretariat >> http://www.eurodig.org/ >> mobile +41 79 204 83 87 >> Skype: Wolf-Ludwig >> >> EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation >> http://euralo.org >> >> Profile on LinkedIn >> http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig >> >> _______________________________________________ >> EURO-Discuss mailing list >> EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss >> >> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org >> > >-- >Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD >http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > >_______________________________________________ >EURO-Discuss mailing list >EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss > >Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org > > EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig

1 0

NARALO Advice
by Garth Bruen March 7, 2013

March 7, 2013

Please note there has been significant debate and disagreement about these objections within NARALO and it has been difficult to come to a true consensus. Based on a brief poll and review of comments received throughout the last 48 hours NARALO advises to NOT promote the objection on the IDN string applied for by Stable Tone Limited - with 1 YES, 4 NO and 1 abstention. On the other four Latin/English HEALTH applications NARALO also advises to NOT promote the objections - with 2 YES, 3 NO and 1 abstention. This was by no means a clear decisions and there are deep divides within the region on this issue. ------------------------------------- Garth Bruen gbruen(a)knujon.com

1 0