IMPORTANT: At-Large Objection Statements posted for RALO review - deadline for RALO advice to ALAC is March 5 2013
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@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>
Good evening: Noted. But Dear Anand Teelucksingh, I have serious reservations about the method that you propose: 1. The discussion in At Large is about whether or not to oppose IN PRINCIPLE the delegation of closed generic TLDs IN GENERAL. I am opposed to the creation of closed/generic TLDs. The arguments to this effect have already been set out on the ALAC e-mail list and webpages. 2. In this context it is quite exaggerated to ask At Large members to comment on individual closed/generic TLDs on a case-by-case basis. This approach would, over time, result in requests for comments about potentially hundreds if not thousands of TLD proposals. That could quickly become unmanageable. As an At Large participant I expect to participate in the development of the general policy. Absent a decision on the general policy, it appears absurd to start commenting on individual applications. 3. In the case in point, .HEALTH (why only that one?), is clearly a generic TLD (in English) . With reference to point 1, above, I would oppose delegation of ALL 5 proposals on the basis of closed/generic TLDs. I hope that this is helpful Christopher Wilkinson On 26 Feb 2013, at 20:06, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@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@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
On 26 February 2013 15:56, CW Mail <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Good evening:
Noted. But Dear Anand Teelucksingh, I have serious reservations about the method that you propose:
1. The discussion in At Large is about whether or not to oppose IN PRINCIPLE the delegation of closed generic TLDs IN GENERAL. I am opposed to the creation of closed/generic TLDs. The arguments to this effect have already been set out on the ALAC e-mail list and webpages.
Hi Christopher, The discussion in At-Large is about "closed generics" in general, and is in response to a Board inquiry on the issue from its communities. The NEW discussion Dev is calling for is whether these specific five objections -- all against applications for .health or an IDN variation of .health -- should be filed by ALAC as part of its authority mandated in the gTLD application process. They're of course related but on two very specific tracks. The email to date has been about generalities and principle. The five objections at hand are very specific. If you believe that all closed generics are bad, then your own PoV -- as a participant in your RALO -- seems pretty clear, and you would advocate that your RALO is one of the three that must escalate the objections for consideration by ALAC. Without the support of three RALOs, the objections die without consideration by ALAC. Dev's email is to indicate that these discussions at the RALO level now need to take place. This is not a method that Dev has proposed casually. It is a long, detailed system that was designed long ago by the community. Regardless of whether the Board acts globally on the issue of closed generics (in which we are but one voice of many), the five specific objections to .health applications are very much within our ability to influence. - Evan
participants (3)
-
CW Mail -
Evan Leibovitch -
ICANN At-Large Staff