I'll do my best to be on the call, there is a foot of snow AGAIN here -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rinalia Abdul Rahim Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 5:36 AM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] Important - For the 8 March ALAC Meeting on .health Objections - A view on key questions prior to ALAC vote 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-objecti on-final.pdf ). 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+ Registry+Agreement+Including+Additional+Public+Interest+Commitments+Specific ation+Workspace ). 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@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+(ALA C)