Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Reference: ICC Ruling on Objections filed by the ALAC
I generally agree with Alejandro (minus accusation of cheating), especially on the need for analysis and drawing of lessons learned to benefit follow up and future At-Large action. A review of the process would be useful. For example, recommendations could be made on whether the ICC panel should include more than 1 person and whether some kind of briefing on the context of ICANN, its ecosystem and processes should be incorporated as part of the panel preparation. The review ideally should include the sub groups that worked on the criteria for objections as well as the development of arguments/substantiation. Best regards, Rinalia
On 23 January 2014 01:15, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>wrote:
A review of the process would be useful. For example, recommendations could be made on whether the ICC panel should include more than 1 person and whether some kind of briefing on the context of ICANN, its ecosystem and processes should be incorporated as part of the panel preparation.
Perhaps a little history is in order. I would note that ALAC was never happy with having the ICC as adjudicators in the first place, or even having an objection process at all. If ICANN did not listen to us when the process was first started, what confidence exists that it would listen to a review that recommends change when it did not listen to our original designs? I am now reminded about the original purpose of the objection process, and in retrospect realize that it has accomplished exactly what it was originally intended to do. The objection procedure is an outgrowth of the GNSO "Rec 6" Working Group<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-22sep10-en.htm>, which was trying to devise a way for groups to object to "offensive" strings (.nazi was the example raised most frequently). The ALAC was quite clear at the time in its analysis of the objection process. The communiqué from ATLAS #1 in Mexico City -- in which all ALSs participated and agreed unanimously, and at which Alejandro was a keynote speaker -- stated that: *We emphatically call for the complete abolition of the class of
objections based on morality **and public order. We assert that ICANN has no business being in (or delegating) the role of **comparing relative morality and conflicting human rights.*
Despite this, ICANN still created an objection process -- but as a concession, allowed ALAC the ability to object. (Little did we know at the time that this ability would be useless because, while we could object we could not be assured standing to object :-P ) The anticipated glut of profane TLD applications never occurred, and the expected murmur against the three sex-related applications was quickly brushed aside. So most of the original point of the objection process quickly became moot. What then occupied the objection process were - Objections on trademark grounds - The ability for a community to complain that a TLD that claimed to represent them really didn't So it was no longer about "what strings were unacceptable" but rather "who should control this string", a very contentious issue within ICANN and still a source of friction between ICANN and its GAC. The community objection has since been used in religious (.islam), geographical (.patagonia) and other grounds. In this context, At-Large participation in objection to .health does indeed raise a legitimate question... *Does At-Large really care which of the existing applicants runs .health? * The adjudicator said it's not our complaint to make, and in some ways I'm not sure I disagree. ALAC never really asked for the right to object in this way anyhow. And given that PICs are useless and ultimately unenforceable, we can't use them to judge which of the applicants would be a "better" custodian of the string. So, in this situation, what is ALAC's role? Since the string ".health" is not obscene, our objections amount to wanting a say in which applicant controls the string. Had the World Health Organization -- which had applied in the past for .health in the past but withdrew<https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/health1/WHO-A-Transmittal-Form.htm>-- applied this time as a community gTLD, it would have prevailed over the non-community applications and the objections would be moot. But that didn't happen. In its absence, do we have the right to say that "if the WHO can't have it, nobody can"? If we want to say "the allocation of domain names must serve the public interest", that philosophy demands FAR FAR more than lame objection processes and even lamer PICs. But it would also demand almost a complete reboot of the gTLD process and of ICANN itself. Given where we are, the objection process probably did the right thing and got out of the way. It's up to the public to either use or shun the .health TLD -- by whoever gets it -- based on its accumulated trust and value. - Evan
Evan, The history is appreciated. It seems to me that a review of this process (as with past reviews of "failed" or unsatisfactory initiatives from the point of view of the At-Large) would fuel arguments/making a case for improving or even "rebooting" the new gTLD program. ICANN may not have listened to all of the At-Large advice/input in the past, but that should not stop the At-Large or the ALAC from presenting its point of view in the interest of end users. Best regards, Rinalia On Jan 23, 2014 3:48 PM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On 23 January 2014 01:15, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
A review of the process would be useful. For example, recommendations could be made on whether the ICC panel should include more than 1 person and whether some kind of briefing on the context of ICANN, its ecosystem and processes should be incorporated as part of the panel preparation.
Perhaps a little history is in order.
I would note that ALAC was never happy with having the ICC as adjudicators in the first place, or even having an objection process at all. If ICANN did not listen to us when the process was first started, what confidence exists that it would listen to a review that recommends change when it did not listen to our original designs?
I am now reminded about the original purpose of the objection process, and in retrospect realize that it has accomplished exactly what it was originally intended to do.
The objection procedure is an outgrowth of the GNSO "Rec 6" Working Group<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-22sep10-en.htm>, which was trying to devise a way for groups to object to "offensive" strings (.nazi was the example raised most frequently). The ALAC was quite clear at the time in its analysis of the objection process. The communiqué from ATLAS #1 in Mexico City -- in which all ALSs participated and agreed unanimously, and at which Alejandro was a keynote speaker -- stated that:
*We emphatically call for the complete abolition of the class of
objections based on morality **and public order. We assert that ICANN has no business being in (or delegating) the role of **comparing relative morality and conflicting human rights.*
Despite this, ICANN still created an objection process -- but as a concession, allowed ALAC the ability to object. (Little did we know at the time that this ability would be useless because, while we could object we could not be assured standing to object :-P )
The anticipated glut of profane TLD applications never occurred, and the expected murmur against the three sex-related applications was quickly brushed aside. So most of the original point of the objection process quickly became moot. What then occupied the objection process were
- Objections on trademark grounds - The ability for a community to complain that a TLD that claimed to represent them really didn't
So it was no longer about "what strings were unacceptable" but rather "who should control this string", a very contentious issue within ICANN and still a source of friction between ICANN and its GAC. The community objection has since been used in religious (.islam), geographical (.patagonia) and other grounds. In this context, At-Large participation in objection to .health does indeed raise a legitimate question...
*Does At-Large really care which of the existing applicants runs .health? *
The adjudicator said it's not our complaint to make, and in some ways I'm not sure I disagree. ALAC never really asked for the right to object in this way anyhow. And given that PICs are useless and ultimately unenforceable, we can't use them to judge which of the applicants would be a "better" custodian of the string.
So, in this situation, what is ALAC's role? Since the string ".health" is not obscene, our objections amount to wanting a say in which applicant controls the string. Had the World Health Organization -- which had applied in the past for .health in the past but withdrew<https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/health1/WHO-A-Transmittal-Form.htm>-- applied this time as a community gTLD, it would have prevailed over the non-community applications and the objections would be moot.
But that didn't happen. In its absence, do we have the right to say that "if the WHO can't have it, nobody can"?
If we want to say "the allocation of domain names must serve the public interest", that philosophy demands FAR FAR more than lame objection processes and even lamer PICs. But it would also demand almost a complete reboot of the gTLD process and of ICANN itself. Given where we are, the objection process probably did the right thing and got out of the way. It's up to the public to either use or shun the .health TLD -- by whoever gets it -- based on its accumulated trust and value.
- Evan
On 23 January 2014 02:51, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan@unam.mx> wrote:
2. if the conclusion about the PICs is that they are worthless and it is now proved ex-post-facto, start drafting, and consulting the RALOs, for a prompt and clear communication. If they can be fixed proposed a fix, if they can't and we all agree, let's put it in writing again. All this should help prepare better cases than the one lost by numerous avoidable reasons, and a better environment for them. Let's serve the at-large users.
and then... On 23 January 2014 03:31, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>wrote:
It seems to me that a review of this process (as with past reviews of "failed" or unsatisfactory initiatives from the point of view of the At-Large) would fuel arguments/making a case for improving or even "rebooting" the new gTLD program.
ICANN may not have listened to all of the At-Large advice/input in the past, but that should not stop the At-Large or the ALAC from presenting its point of view in the interest of end users.
I can't disagree. But it's not for lack of trying. In the past when I tried to get ALAC to convey deep concerns about the state of the gTLD program -- concerns that called for radical change to improve the public interest component of the expansion -- I got shot down by my own community. Have a look at this statement I drafted in 2011<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=31164161>that never made it for ALAC consideration, let alone a vote. Specifically, read the comments that together (IMO) induce a chilling effect on calls for anything more than superficial change. - Evan
Dear Evan, On 23/01/2014 10:01, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
In the past when I tried to get ALAC to convey deep concerns about the state of the gTLD program -- concerns that called for radical change to improve the public interest component of the expansion -- I got shot down by my own community.
Have a look at this statement I drafted in 2011<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=31164161>that never made it for ALAC consideration, let alone a vote. Specifically, read the comments that together (IMO) induce a chilling effect on calls for anything more than superficial change.
At the time, the assertions you made were not fully supported by documentary evidence of intent and result so we were probably quite cautious with any allegations. With time, and as processed in the AG are being implemented, it is becoming clearer that the Applicant Guidebook contains failings and flaws that do not serve the public interest. At the time, the very concept of "public interest" was being challenged, if you remember. Now of course, all of these events and rulings are providing us with very valuable feedback for the next round of applications. If ICANN really is serious about the public interest, they will need to analyse the rulings and find out what went wrong. I am particularly concerned with the narrow definition of "community", "Internet community", "end user community" - or in fact as their lack of definition. Referring to the ICANN Bylaws, the ALAC's scope should be defined in a way that the "community' element would be accepted by legal rulings. Yet the ICC examiner's ruling is that the Community needs to be clearly delineated (as the AG asks) in such a narrow sense that the ALAC really does not represent anything or anyone. I am troubled that this interpretation is *exactly* the interpretation of the applicants who responded to the ALAC's objection by challenging the ALAC itself. (whether this is ethical or not, I don't blame them for it, it is entirely fair game - play the system you're given and make use of its flaws) The ALAC asked for the possibility to file objections and after much hard work, it was given that chance and provided with a gun and ammunition. But was the ammunition all blanks? Kind regards, Olivier
Dear Evan: History absolves only if one's been paying attention. So thanks for saving me the trouble of writing another long treatise....and using words that come to my head in a stream of consciousness that might have to be explained. You've just gone and remind me why I have to add you to the list of excellent researchers - and thinkers - in the At-Large. Not to bounce the rubble. But the facts will show I was the first on these lists denouncing the objection process then, both philosophically and as a jerry-built contrivance. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On 23 January 2014 01:15, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>wrote:
A review of the process would be useful. For example, recommendations could be made on whether the ICC panel should include more than 1 person and whether some kind of briefing on the context of ICANN, its ecosystem and processes should be incorporated as part of the panel preparation.
Perhaps a little history is in order.
I would note that ALAC was never happy with having the ICC as adjudicators in the first place, or even having an objection process at all. If ICANN did not listen to us when the process was first started, what confidence exists that it would listen to a review that recommends change when it did not listen to our original designs?
I am now reminded about the original purpose of the objection process, and in retrospect realize that it has accomplished exactly what it was originally intended to do.
The objection procedure is an outgrowth of the GNSO "Rec 6" Working Group< https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-22sep10-en.htm
, which was trying to devise a way for groups to object to "offensive" strings (.nazi was the example raised most frequently). The ALAC was quite clear at the time in its analysis of the objection process. The communiqué from ATLAS #1 in Mexico City -- in which all ALSs participated and agreed unanimously, and at which Alejandro was a keynote speaker -- stated that:
*We emphatically call for the complete abolition of the class of
objections based on morality **and public order. We assert that ICANN has no business being in (or delegating) the role of **comparing relative morality and conflicting human rights.*
Despite this, ICANN still created an objection process -- but as a concession, allowed ALAC the ability to object. (Little did we know at the time that this ability would be useless because, while we could object we could not be assured standing to object :-P )
The anticipated glut of profane TLD applications never occurred, and the expected murmur against the three sex-related applications was quickly brushed aside. So most of the original point of the objection process quickly became moot. What then occupied the objection process were
- Objections on trademark grounds - The ability for a community to complain that a TLD that claimed to represent them really didn't
So it was no longer about "what strings were unacceptable" but rather "who should control this string", a very contentious issue within ICANN and still a source of friction between ICANN and its GAC. The community objection has since been used in religious (.islam), geographical (.patagonia) and other grounds. In this context, At-Large participation in objection to .health does indeed raise a legitimate question...
*Does At-Large really care which of the existing applicants runs .health? *
The adjudicator said it's not our complaint to make, and in some ways I'm not sure I disagree. ALAC never really asked for the right to object in this way anyhow. And given that PICs are useless and ultimately unenforceable, we can't use them to judge which of the applicants would be a "better" custodian of the string.
So, in this situation, what is ALAC's role? Since the string ".health" is not obscene, our objections amount to wanting a say in which applicant controls the string. Had the World Health Organization -- which had applied in the past for .health in the past but withdrew< https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/health1/WHO-A-Transmittal-Form.htm>-- applied this time as a community gTLD, it would have prevailed over the non-community applications and the objections would be moot.
But that didn't happen. In its absence, do we have the right to say that "if the WHO can't have it, nobody can"?
If we want to say "the allocation of domain names must serve the public interest", that philosophy demands FAR FAR more than lame objection processes and even lamer PICs. But it would also demand almost a complete reboot of the gTLD process and of ICANN itself. Given where we are, the objection process probably did the right thing and got out of the way. It's up to the public to either use or shun the .health TLD -- by whoever gets it -- based on its accumulated trust and value.
- Evan _______________________________________________ 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...)
participants (4)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Rinalia Abdul Rahim