- ALAC - lists.icann.org

REMINDER/Meeting Invitation and Call for Comments - ALAC call to discuss the proposed version of their NEW Rules of Procedure (RoPs) - Tuesday, 19 March 2013 at 2100 UTC
by Heidi Ullrich March 17, 2013

March 17, 2013

When: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:00 PM-10:30 PM. GMT Standard Time Where: 2100 UTC - Adigo EN 1638, ES 1738, FR 1838 /(for the time in various time-zones click here <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=ALAC+meeting+for+f inal+review+of+the+revised+ROPs&iso=20130319T21> ) Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/alac ** On behalf of Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, and Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Chair of the At-Large Rules of Procedure Working Group, please see the important note below regarding an upcoming ALAC Meeting to review the revised ALAC Rules of Procedure (RoPs): ** Dear All, As per a previous discussion and agreement of the ALAC on 22 January 2013, the ALAC will be holding a single purpose teleconference call to discuss the proposed version of their NEW Rules of Procedure (RoPs) before a Call to Vote to Ratify and Adopt these (or not) which is to be conducted online and prior to the 46th ICANN Meeting to be held in Beijing 7-11 April 2013. This special meeting of the ALAC, which is open to all members of the At-Large Community, especially RALO Leadership and ALS members, is now announced. This call will be held on Tuesday, 19 March 2013 at 2100 UTC (2100 UTC =1400 PDT, 1700 EDT, 2200 CET, 5am Hong Kong (+1 Day) and 8am Sydney (+1 Day). The Wiki page for this meeting is found at <https://community.icann.org/x/WpVwAg> https://community.icann.org/x/WpVwAg. FR and ES interpretation has been confirmed for this meeting. All Members of the ALAC and members of the At-Large Community are requested to RSVP their attendance at this call to At-Large Staff ( <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> staff(a)atlarge.icann.org) indicating if they will be joining one of the interpreted channels. IMPORTANT: The 15 Members of the ALAC are encouraged to place any comments they have in the COMMENTS section of the meeting page (see: <https://community.icann.org/x/WpVwAg> https://community.icann.org/x/WpVwAg) or e-mail to the ALAC Working List ( <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org) particularly if they will not be able to attend this meeting. Members of the At-Large Community who wish to have any input or comments on these proposed new RoPs considered at this meeting should send these contributions to one of the ALAC Members from their Region or via email to the Chair of the Rules of Procedure Working Group, Cheryl Langdon-Orr ( <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com> langdonorr(a)gmail.com) Background on these proposed new ALAC RoPs and opportunity for final ALAC review: This final version of the new ALAC RoP (see: <https://community.icann.org/x/VoYi> https://community.icann.org/x/VoYi and attached) is the product of an extensive process carried out by some 33 members of the At-Large Community (ALAC Members, formal Regional representatives as well as individual ALS and RALO members of the At-Large Community who volunteered to the ALAC Metrics and RoP Review WG(s). These volunteers have, in face-to-face and teleconference meetings of the Working Group (WG) as a whole and of the new Rules section Drafting Teams (DTs), committed well over 500 person-hours in review of the current RoPs and support material including previous versions, discussion of all rules merits, and in drafting of and editing this new Rules proposed text. A summary of who participated in the various RoP meetings can be found at: <https://community.icann.org/x/SgoQAg> https://community.icann.org/x/SgoQAg. In addition, and unfortunately difficult to measure and capture, is an extraordinary amount of time spent by the WG's Drafting Teams (DTs) leadership and section pen-holders (noting each DT was in itself, like the RoP Review WG as a whole, a deliberately regionally balanced group) and even more hours and effort again contributed by several current and previously serving ALAC Members during the final stages of integration and editing of the version you are presented with here. The majority of the ALAC has been directly involved with the Rules of Procedure WG and DTs activities and in several cases served as Leads and/or Pen-Holders for the discussion and drafting, and therefore it is unexpected and doubtful that any significant or substantial omissions or edits will be proposed for discussion either at or before the conference call. Also it is recognised that the ALAC has at its regular meetings been continually appraised of the progress of this Rules Review and also that all business of the Review WG/DTs has been done in an open and transparent manner with archives and records being held and publicly available on the relevant ALAC wiki pages. It must also be noted by the ALAC as a whole and by the wider At-Large Community in general, that virtually every concept and issue relating to these proposed new ALAC RoPs was discussed extensively, prior to any drafting, and often reviewed line by line, mostly over several visits / revisits at several meetings. Anything that was even slightly controversial or where people had differing views was debated and in virtually all cases, what has ended up in these Rules has a strong consensus of those working on the original drafting team and the final reviewers. It is also important to note that several of the 'Adjunct Documents' referred to in these new Rules are not as yet completely finalised nor have they been reviewed (as such) by the ALAC. However, they are all to be drawn from existing ALAC policy and practices and will be shortly available. The vote for the adoption of these new ALAC RoPs does not need to be delayed until they are prepared and circulated, but rather the new RoPs will not come into effect until those Adjunct Documents are all approved by the ALAC. Specific details on the ALAC vote plans and procedures relating to these new ALAC Rules will be discussed during this special ALAC meeting on 19 March 2013, but it is our hope that the vote can commence shortly after the ALAC monthly call on 26 March 2013. Regards, Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Olivier Crepin-Leblond 11 March 2013 ** Kind regards, Heidi Heidi Ullrich Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956

2 1

Fwd: Blog Piece on Unilateral Right to Amend
by Alan Greenberg March 17, 2013

March 17, 2013

>From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:31:57 -0400 >Subject: [council] FW: Blog Piece on Unilateral Right to Amend Given the conversation we had during the GNSO Council call, I thought you may find this blog post we drafted on the Unilateral Right to Amend: <http://blog.neustar.biz/neustar-insights/clearing-up-the-logjam-time-for-ic…>http://blog.neustar.biz/neustar-insights/clearing-up-the-logjam-time-for-ic… I have printed the full version below; Clearing Up the Logjam: Time for ICANN to Drop Request for a Unilateral Right to Amend the Agreements By: Jeff Neuman A very rare thing happened in the GNSO Council meeting this weekthe ICANN community spoke with one voice. Registries, registrars, non-commercial interests, new TLD applicants, IP owners and businesses unanimously and unambiguously agreed that giving ICANN a "unilateral right to amend" the registry and registrar agreements is not compatible with ICANNs bottom-up processes and poses a fundamental threat to the multi-stakeholder model. There is true consensus that this change should be rejected. On February 5, 2013, ICANN surprised the community by re-introducing its demand for a unilateral right to amend the gTLD Registry Agreement. ICANN made the same change in the Registrar Accreditation Agreements. (This was posted for public comment on March 7, 2013. See: <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-07mar13-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-07mar13-en.htm) This move came without consultation, nearly five years after the new gTLD Program moved into the implementation phase, and three years after the community and ICANN, through a bottom-up process, rejected this approach and reached a compromise on similar language. During the GNSO Council's monthly teleconference on March 14, 2013, while discussing the recent changes to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, Council members raised the topic of ICANN's proposed unilateral right to amend the registry and registrar agreements. ICANN staff present on the call explained its position, saying, "the amendment clause is actually intended to be last resort for when there is agreement that something needs to be done, but there is a logjam within the processes that we have that dont allow us to move forward." Essentially, ICANN is asking, "what happens when everyone agrees that a particular change is needed, but the multi-stakeholder processes or someone manipulating those processes - prevents the community from moving forward with what the community wants." Taken in isolation and without any other context, this is a perfectly reasonable question. If there truly were no mechanisms in the registry or registrar agreements to make necessary changes when the community demands action, then ICANN staff's concerns would be justified. It would be a good question to ask if someone could use ICANN processes to block a change that everyone else supported. The fact is, however, that there already are a number of mechanisms ICANN can take to implement community supported changes. First, of course, contracted-parties can agree to make a change they support. Second, there is a bottom-up Consensus Policy mechanism for critical changes that ensures that any implementation is appropriately balanced across multiple constituencies and stakeholder groups. Truly important and time-sensitive issues can be addressed via Temporary Policies that remain in place for up to a year and, during that year, can be adopted as Consensus Policies. Finally, the new gTLD agreement contains a new mechanism that gives ICANN authority to make amendments supported by a specific percentage of the registry operators effective across the entire registry group. This is the compromise that was developed through a bottom-up process in 2009-2010 when the community rejected the unilateral change provision. ICANN agreed in 2010 that these three mechanisms gave it the necessary tools to amend the registry contract to implement changes demanded by the community. Apparently, it has had a change of heart and now wants the authority to unilaterally impose changes to the agreements. To date, ICANNs explanation is that the introduction of new gTLDs will change things in ways that cannot be anticipated. ICANN has not responded to community requests for a concrete example of when this right would actually be needed. Of course, the ICANN world is not unique the future is inherently unknown, but parties enter into long-term contracts with high stakes all the time without introducing the kind of uncertainty that a unilateral amendment right would create. To borrow from the gTLD Registries comment made on February 26, 2013: "we are in the midst of dramatic change in the administration of the top-level domain name system. All businesses whether for profit or nonprofit - require a measure of predictability, stability and certainty of contracts. Public and multi-national company applicants are subject to regulatory regimes that cannot be reconciled with the expanded unilateral authority ICANN is seeking. In deciding whether or not to utilize new gTLDs for their critical infrastructure assets, a key goal of the new gTLD program, registries cannot be subject to the whim of one private entity, even those acting under the guise of public interest, regardless of how well-intentioned that private entity purports to be." ICANN's proposal for this new mechanism, however, has been met with opposition not only from the new gTLD Applicants and existing registries, but also the registrars, non-commercial interests, businesses and IP owners. In fact, every single comment on ICANNs last minute changes to the new gTLD registry agreement called for its removal. EVERYONE is in agreement that this is a bad idea and should be withdrawn. The fact that the entire community has never been so aligned about a particular subject speaks volumes, but despite this clarity ICANN continues to insist on a unilateral right to amend the registry and registrar agreements, Ironically, in this case ICANN itself is creating a logjam that is preventing forward movement. By walking away from the version of the legal agreement contained in the final Applicant Guidebook, ICANN is preventing the new gTLD Program from going forward. This same issue is also the logjam preventing the roll out of a new registrar accreditation agreement containing enormous changes that would benefit registrants, law enforcement, intellectual property owners and Internet users in general. So in response to ICANNs question about clearing logjams, we think they are asking the wrong question. ICANN should stop worrying about the theoretical logjams of the future. Its time to take this request for extraordinary, unilateral power off the table in order to clear away todays very real logjam. Once this request is withdrawn, the new gTLD program can move forward and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement can be finalized.

2 1

Fwd: Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond March 15, 2013

March 15, 2013

Dear all, For your information, this is my long-awaited report, a copy of which I have just sent to Fadi Chehadé, in a personal capacity. However, I hope that the suggestions I make in the report will open the door to a dialogue where our community can do more and is enabled to do more - because engaging the community is really important and enabling the grass roots of the multi-stakeholder model, is what At-Large is all about. Kindest regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:37:15 -0700 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> To: Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade(a)icann.org> CC: ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Mandy Carver <Mandy.Carver(a)icann.org>, Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson(a)icann.org> Dear Fadi, please be so kind to find attached my report about the December 2012 Dubai "World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT)" for your perusal. This report is divided into two parts: 1. What happened at WCIT 2. Suggested next steps for ICANN/At-Large At this stage, I do not expect you to be able to read through the whole document by our meeting tomorrow at the ICANN offices, but I look forward to summarize its main lines to you in person. This report is unclassified. You may therefore share it with your colleagues (and are indeed encouraged to share it) - as I shall also make it downloadable from an on-line archive. Please note that I did not author this report under any authority other than my personal opinions - hence as an individual only, for various reasons. However, since I had access to the WCIT's meetings thanks to being a full delegate in the UK Delegation, I have obtained prior permission from our Head of Delegation to release its contents with no restriction. I shall also share this report directly with the At-Large Community. I hope that this report will help you formulate your own point of view about the WCIT as part of the various sources which I am sure you have consulted and to identify the steps that ICANN and its communities - and the At-Large Community in particular - should take, in my point of view, to remedy some of the issues raised. Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond

1 0

ATRT-2: How to get on group skype chat?
by Alan Greenberg March 14, 2013

March 14, 2013

YOo need to contact someone who is already on it, either directly or via another group chant that I, Olivier, Avri or At-Large Staff are good places to start. Alan At 14/03/2013 12:34 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >The first face-to-face is off and running. It can be followed at >http://icann.adobeconnect.com/atrt2/. > >The Wiki page is: >https://community.icann.org/display/ATRT2/ATRT+2+Face-to-Face+Meeting > >I have started a group Skype chat - ATRT-2-At-Large. > >Alan

1 0

ATRT-2
by Alan Greenberg March 14, 2013

March 14, 2013

The first face-to-face is off and running. It can be followed at http://icann.adobeconnect.com/atrt2/. The Wiki page is: https://community.icann.org/display/ATRT2/ATRT+2+Face-to-Face+Meeting I have started a group Skype chat - ATRT-2-At-Large. Alan

1 0

Draft ALAC Rules of Procedure & Upcoming Teleconference Review Meeting
by Heidi Ullrich March 12, 2013

March 12, 2013

On behalf of Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, and Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Chair of the At-Large Rules of Procedure Working Group, please see the important note below regarding an upcoming ALAC Meeting to review the revised ALAC Rules of Procedure (RoPs): ** Dear All, As per a previous discussion and agreement of the ALAC on 22 January 2013, the ALAC will be holding a single purpose teleconference call to discuss the proposed version of their NEW Rules of Procedure (RoPs) before a Call to Vote to Ratify and Adopt these (or not) which is to be conducted online and prior to the 46th ICANN Meeting to be held in Beijing 7-11 April 2013. This special meeting of the ALAC, which is open to all members of the At-Large Community, especially RALO Leadership and ALS members, is now announced. This call will be held on Tuesday, 19 March 2013 at 2100 UTC (2100 UTC =1400 PDT, 1700 EDT, 2200 CET, 5am Hong Kong (+1 Day) and 8am Sydney (+1 Day). The Wiki page for this meeting is found at https://community.icann.org/x/WpVwAg. FR and ES interpretation has been confirmed for this meeting. All Members of the ALAC and members of the At-Large Community are requested to RSVP their attendance at this call to At-Large Staff (staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>) indicating if they will be joining one of the interpreted channels. The 15 Members of the ALAC are encouraged to place any comments they have in the COMMENTS section of the meeting page (see: https://community.icann.org/x/WpVwAg) or e-mail to the ALAC Working List ( alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>), particularly if they will not be able to attend this meeting. Members of the At-Large Community who wish to have any input or comments on these proposed new RoPs considered at this meeting should send these contributions to one of the ALAC Members from their Region or via email to the Chair of the Rules of Procedure Working Group, Cheryl Langdon-Orr (langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>). Background on these proposed new ALAC RoPs and opportunity for final ALAC review: This final version of the new ALAC RoP (see: https://community.icann.org/x/VoYi and attached) is the product of an extensive process carried out by some 33 members of the At-Large Community (ALAC Members, formal Regional representatives as well as individual ALS and RALO members of the At-Large Community who volunteered to the ALAC Metrics and RoP Review WG(s). These volunteers have, in face-to-face and teleconference meetings of the Working Group (WG) as a whole and of the new Rules section Drafting Teams (DTs), committed well over 500 person-hours in review of the current RoPs and support material including previous versions, discussion of all rules merits, and in drafting of and editing this new Rules proposed text. A summary of who participated in the various RoP meetings can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/SgoQAg. In addition, and unfortunately difficult to measure and capture, is an extraordinary amount of time spent by the WG's Drafting Teams (DTs) leadership and section pen-holders (noting each DT was in itself, like the RoP Review WG as a whole, a deliberately regionally balanced group) and even more hours and effort again contributed by several current and previously serving ALAC Members during the final stages of integration and editing of the version you are presented with here. The majority of the ALAC has been directly involved with the Rules of Procedure WG and DTs' activities and in several cases served as Leads and/or Pen-Holders for the discussion and drafting, and therefore it is unexpected and doubtful that any significant or substantial omissions or edits will be proposed for discussion either at or before the conference call. Also it is recognised that the ALAC has at its regular meetings been continually appraised of the progress of this Rules Review and also that all business of the Review WG/DTs has been done in an open and transparent manner with archives and records being held and publicly available on the relevant ALAC wiki pages. It must also be noted by the ALAC as a whole and by the wider At-Large Community in general, that virtually every concept and issue relating to these proposed new ALAC RoPs was discussed extensively, prior to any drafting, and often reviewed line by line, mostly over several visits / revisits at several meetings. Anything that was even slightly controversial or where people had differing views was debated and in virtually all cases, what has ended up in these Rules has a strong consensus of those working on the original drafting team and the final reviewers. It is also important to note that several of the 'Adjunct Documents' referred to in these new Rules are not as yet completely finalised nor have they been reviewed (as such) by the ALAC. However, they are all to be drawn from existing ALAC policy and practices and will be shortly available. The vote for the adoption of these new ALAC RoPs does not need to be delayed until they are prepared and circulated, but rather the new RoPs will not come into effect until those Adjunct Documents are all approved by the ALAC. Specific details on the ALAC vote plans and procedures relating to these new ALAC Rules will be discussed during this special ALAC meeting on 19 March 2013, but it is our hope that the vote can commence shortly after the ALAC monthly call on 26 March 2013. Regards, Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Olivier Crepin-Leblond 11 March 2013 ** Kind Regards, Heidi Heidi Ullrich Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956

3 2

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