Notice of Motion: update to ALAC advice on gTLDs
Hello, This message is to announce my intention to move this motion at the *JANUARY* ALAC meeting. This is being done in order to enable discussion to take place -- within ALAC, its gTLD working group, and the RALOs -- to determine the response to this issue which has been IMO simmering throughout the At-Large community. We are told by many (and officially by ICANN) that the program is set and we should stop complaining, But to refuse to express the point of view of the public interest within ICANN -- even if it is contrary to the predominant wisdom -- if to fail at the very basics of At-Large's bylaw-mandated role. Please distribute this to the four RALO mailing lists where I do not have posting rights, and translate if possible. - Evan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WHEREAS end-users and governments have only been invited to participate in the new gTLD program long after its foundation principles were determined; WHEREAS most of the problems identified by the ALAC in its Mexico City Summit declaration related to the new-gTLD program have not been satisfactorily addressed and indeed some have worsened; WHEREAS numerous complaints from governments, intergovernmental organizations and other bodies have indicated that law enforcement and public-protection measures in the current design of the gTLD program are insufficient; WHEREAS the ICANN Board, without explanation, has refused the cross-community endorsement of the Joint Applicant Support Working Group recommendations to reduce costs of new gTLD in developing economies independent of any fixed fund; WHEREAS the absence of a staggered release schedule or a fixed timetable for future rounds severely inhibits ICANN's ability to correct mistakes in the proposed application round; and WHEREAS ICANN has still not convincingly demonstrated the end-user need or benefit of a simultaneous launch of hundreds of new TLDs; RESOLVED THAT the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) convey to the ICANN Board and community the dissatisfaction of At-Large with the new gTLD program in its current form, and explicitly advises that its implementation would be harmful to the public interest. We request that implementation of the program be suspended until necessary public-interest modifications are implemented.
Dear Evan, thank you for this proposed motion. I'll ask staff to add 5 minutes to the Tuesday 20th Dec 2011 ALAC call agenda, for me to announce the proposed motion and let you say a couple of words about it to introduce it. Ideally, the discussion should follow-up by email until the January ALAC call, where we can allow some time for discussion. I'd like to remind everyone that at the present moment, this is a draft motion which might be amended, ratified or not ratified depending on which way the discussion and vote goes. A full month of discussion will, I hope, find consensus one way or other. Also - I'd like to refute any allegation that the ALAC is "against new gTLDs". I have heard this from a few observers now and this is clearly not the case. In my opinion, the ALAC's duty is to make sure that the launch of the new gTLDs is in the public's interest. Kind regards, Olivier Le 18/12/2011 19:30, Evan Leibovitch a écrit :
Hello,
This message is to announce my intention to move this motion at the *JANUARY* ALAC meeting.
This is being done in order to enable discussion to take place -- within ALAC, its gTLD working group, and the RALOs -- to determine the response to this issue which has been IMO simmering throughout the At-Large community.
We are told by many (and officially by ICANN) that the program is set and we should stop complaining, But to refuse to express the point of view of the public interest within ICANN -- even if it is contrary to the predominant wisdom -- if to fail at the very basics of At-Large's bylaw-mandated role.
Please distribute this to the four RALO mailing lists where I do not have posting rights, and translate if possible.
- Evan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS end-users and governments have only been invited to participate in the new gTLD program long after its foundation principles were determined;
WHEREAS most of the problems identified by the ALAC in its Mexico City Summit declaration related to the new-gTLD program have not been satisfactorily addressed and indeed some have worsened;
WHEREAS numerous complaints from governments, intergovernmental organizations and other bodies have indicated that law enforcement and public-protection measures in the current design of the gTLD program are insufficient;
WHEREAS the ICANN Board, without explanation, has refused the cross-community endorsement of the Joint Applicant Support Working Group recommendations to reduce costs of new gTLD in developing economies independent of any fixed fund;
WHEREAS the absence of a staggered release schedule or a fixed timetable for future rounds severely inhibits ICANN's ability to correct mistakes in the proposed application round;
and
WHEREAS ICANN has still not convincingly demonstrated the end-user need or benefit of a simultaneous launch of hundreds of new TLDs;
RESOLVED THAT the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) convey to the ICANN Board and community the dissatisfaction of At-Large with the new gTLD program in its current form, and explicitly advises that its implementation would be harmful to the public interest. We request that implementation of the program be suspended until necessary public-interest modifications are implemented. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Also - I'd like to refute any allegation that the ALAC is "against new gTLDs". I have heard this from a few observers now and this is clearly not the case. In my opinion, the ALAC's duty is to make sure that the launch of the new gTLDs is in the public's interest.
To the extent that we don't believe that ICANN can create new TLDs (other than the fast track IDNs) in a responsible fashion, I guess we're against new TLDs. I think Evan's proposal is excellent, and I hope all ALAC members vote for it. R's, John
I know that ALAC was set up to represent the public interest, but I am unaware of any evidence that it does. In order to represent the public interest, ALAC must first define what that is. Antony Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2011, at 10:57, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Also - I'd like to refute any allegation that the ALAC is "against new gTLDs". I have heard this from a few observers now and this is clearly not the case. In my opinion, the ALAC's duty is to make sure that the launch of the new gTLDs is in the public's interest.
To the extent that we don't believe that ICANN can create new TLDs (other than the fast track IDNs) in a responsible fashion, I guess we're against new TLDs.
I think Evan's proposal is excellent, and I hope all ALAC members vote for it.
R's, John _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Dear Anthony, On 18/12/2011 23:45, Antony Van Couvering wrote :
I know that ALAC was set up to represent the public interest, but I am unaware of any evidence that it does.
In order to represent the public interest, ALAC must first define what that is.
Thank you for your suggestion. In the interest of the ALAC not wasting time on re-inventing the wheel, I may recommend some reading from scholars who have spent time studying the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest If you'd prefer more legitimate reading material for the holiday break, I'd suggest a search for "the public interest" @ Amazon and you'll find a handful of books that treat the subject with all of the magnificence that the subject deserves. I encourage other At-Large members to share their reading list too. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Dear Olivier, If only it were that simple. Sending me a reading list won't solve the problem, which is real. At the ICANN meeting in Singapore, the issue of the public interest came up at the public forum. Steve Del Bianco told the ICANN Board that the term "pubic interest" should be defined, and that set off a series of statements by the Board either pro or con for attempting a definition of "public interest." Nobody on the floor or on the Board suggested that there was a definition, and indeed the whole argument that ensued was whether a definition should be attempted -- the clear inference being that none existed. See http://singapore41.icann.org/meetings/singapore2011/transcript-public-forum-... (search on "delbianco" to get to the right section). Furthermore, the GAC claims to represent the public interest. If ALAC and the GAC disagree, which position represents the public interest? Is it GAC's position, which is to accept the Board's ruling that consensus exists and that we are now moving ahead with the program, or is it ALAC's, which is to reject the notion that there was consensus? I said before that the ALAC was set up to represent the public interest. I was wrong. The ICANN Bylaws establishing the ALAC say nothing about it representing the public interest. Instead, it speaks of ALAC representing the views of individual Internet users (see http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XI - Article IX.2.4) What is the public interest and who represents it? If the suggestion is that ALAC does, what is the basis of this claim? I appreciate that it might not be everyone's favorite idea of a fun time to examine this question, but before ALAC sends a letter claiming to represent the public interest, these issues need to be cleared up or the letter might be dismissed as illegitimate. Antony On Dec 18, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Anthony,
On 18/12/2011 23:45, Antony Van Couvering wrote :
I know that ALAC was set up to represent the public interest, but I am unaware of any evidence that it does.
In order to represent the public interest, ALAC must first define what that is.
Thank you for your suggestion. In the interest of the ALAC not wasting time on re-inventing the wheel, I may recommend some reading from scholars who have spent time studying the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest
If you'd prefer more legitimate reading material for the holiday break, I'd suggest a search for "the public interest" @ Amazon and you'll find a handful of books that treat the subject with all of the magnificence that the subject deserves.
I encourage other At-Large members to share their reading list too.
Kind regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Dear Antony, The Public Interest is not definable by or amenable to micro managers. All one can do is be open to structuring opportunities to focus calls for expressions and discussions of interests. In ICANN, ALAC is one such opportunity. GAC is another. The constituent organisations such as the RIRs have their own local versions. They attract different publics and so may agree on interests or not depending on subject matter at hand. The interests being made public are by definition public interests. This should not be confused with The Public Interest which is an abstraction. If ALAC as a public interests body states something then whether this statement of public interests is seen as The Public Interest depends on the credibility of ALAC in making such a statement and comparison of its view with those of others. Isn't this the main rationale for maintaining the multi stakeholder model for the Internet? So the idea of defining The Public Interest in advance is putting a phliosophical cart before the horse. The Public Interest or Interests are an emergent property not a precondition. In my view ALAC and At Large have sufficient credibility in topics such as gTLDs so that it's statements are at least considered as serious contributions towards developing a broader appreciation of what constitutes The Public Interest. Christian de Larrinaga On 19 Dec 2011, at 00:42, Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc> wrote:
Dear Olivier,
If only it were that simple. Sending me a reading list won't solve the problem, which is real.
At the ICANN meeting in Singapore, the issue of the public interest came up at the public forum. Steve Del Bianco told the ICANN Board that the term "pubic interest" should be defined, and that set off a series of statements by the Board either pro or con for attempting a definition of "public interest." Nobody on the floor or on the Board suggested that there was a definition, and indeed the whole argument that ensued was whether a definition should be attempted -- the clear inference being that none existed. See http://singapore41.icann.org/meetings/singapore2011/transcript-public-forum-... (search on "delbianco" to get to the right section).
Furthermore, the GAC claims to represent the public interest. If ALAC and the GAC disagree, which position represents the public interest? Is it GAC's position, which is to accept the Board's ruling that consensus exists and that we are now moving ahead with the program, or is it ALAC's, which is to reject the notion that there was consensus?
I said before that the ALAC was set up to represent the public interest. I was wrong. The ICANN Bylaws establishing the ALAC say nothing about it representing the public interest. Instead, it speaks of ALAC representing the views of individual Internet users (see http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XI - Article IX.2.4)
What is the public interest and who represents it? If the suggestion is that ALAC does, what is the basis of this claim?
I appreciate that it might not be everyone's favorite idea of a fun time to examine this question, but before ALAC sends a letter claiming to represent the public interest, these issues need to be cleared up or the letter might be dismissed as illegitimate.
Antony
On Dec 18, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Anthony,
On 18/12/2011 23:45, Antony Van Couvering wrote :
I know that ALAC was set up to represent the public interest, but I am unaware of any evidence that it does.
In order to represent the public interest, ALAC must first define what that is.
Thank you for your suggestion. In the interest of the ALAC not wasting time on re-inventing the wheel, I may recommend some reading from scholars who have spent time studying the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest
If you'd prefer more legitimate reading material for the holiday break, I'd suggest a search for "the public interest" @ Amazon and you'll find a handful of books that treat the subject with all of the magnificence that the subject deserves.
I encourage other At-Large members to share their reading list too.
Kind regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Dear Anthony, thank you for your kind reply. I'll try and be somehow more explicit in my reply here. On 19/12/2011 01:42, Antony Van Couvering wrote :
At the ICANN meeting in Singapore, the issue of the public interest came up at the public forum. Steve Del Bianco told the ICANN Board that the term "pubic interest" should be defined, and that set off a series of statements by the Board either pro or con for attempting a definition of "public interest." Nobody on the floor or on the Board suggested that there was a definition, and indeed the whole argument that ensued was whether a definition should be attempted -- the clear inference being that none existed. See http://singapore41.icann.org/meetings/singapore2011/transcript-public-forum-... (search on "delbianco" to get to the right section).
Furthermore, the GAC claims to represent the public interest. If ALAC and the GAC disagree, which position represents the public interest? Is it GAC's position, which is to accept the Board's ruling that consensus exists and that we are now moving ahead with the program, or is it ALAC's, which is to reject the notion that there was consensus?
This is old news. There has since been a meeting in Dakar and the GAC & ALAC discussed the concept of "public interest", among a lot of other things. It was a very enjoyable and successful meeting. http://dakar42.icann.org/node/26889 Alas, and I notice this with horror, it appears that the transcripts have not been place on-line yet! Staff -- may I ask that you please follow-up about this, as a matter of urgency! As far as a GAC is concerned, I cannot pertain to speak on their behalf, but I invite you to review the transcript of the Dakar meeting of the GAC with the GNSO. It can be reached from: http://dakar42.icann.org/node/26813 And also the transcript of the GAC meeting with the Board, reached from: http://dakar42.icann.org/node/26925 You will notice that the GAC echoes some of the concerns the ALAC has.
I said before that the ALAC was set up to represent the public interest. I was wrong. The ICANN Bylaws establishing the ALAC say nothing about it representing the public interest. Instead, it speaks of ALAC representing the views of individual Internet users (see http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XI - Article IX.2.4)
What is the public interest and who represents it? If the suggestion is that ALAC does, what is the basis of this claim?
I appreciate that it might not be everyone's favorite idea of a fun time to examine this question, but before ALAC sends a letter claiming to represent the public interest, these issues need to be cleared up or the letter might be dismissed as illegitimate.
It appears that you are not satisfied with definitions of the "public interest" which I have pointed out. The proposed motion with the "public interest" text might be amended to "the interest of Internet users" if others agree. Thanks for pointing this possible ambiguity out. Warmest regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Dear Olivier, I think the recommendation to suspend the program is wrong (Strickling is right :-)), yes I know it's draft, however if you wish to go forward with it and have the resolution taken seriously, you (or at least Evan as the proposer of the motion) should be specific in what is meant by "public-interest" in this sentence: "We request that implementation of the program be suspended until necessary public-interest modifications are implemented." The gTLD program is specific, what needs to be modified to remove these public-interest concerns? Identify what needs to be addressed, otherwise you're potentially creating an ever moving target. Best, Adam At 12:13 AM +0100 12/19/11, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Anthony,
On 18/12/2011 23:45, Antony Van Couvering wrote :
I know that ALAC was set up to represent the public interest, but I am unaware of any evidence that it does.
In order to represent the public interest, ALAC must first define what that is.
Thank you for your suggestion. In the interest of the ALAC not wasting time on re-inventing the wheel, I may recommend some reading from scholars who have spent time studying the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest
If you'd prefer more legitimate reading material for the holiday break, I'd suggest a search for "the public interest" @ Amazon and you'll find a handful of books that treat the subject with all of the magnificence that the subject deserves.
I encourage other At-Large members to share their reading list too.
Kind regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Evan, You seem to be of the opinion that the At Large's Mexico statement's pretty important, the section of the Mexico Declaration addressing new gTLD opens with the following: "We agree with and support the expedient introduction of new gTLDs, especially those offering support for IDNs. In fact, we believe that a number of components of the proposed policy present unnecessary barriers to entry for the broadest possible variety of gTLD applicants." Seems you are coming close to re-writing history. The At Large statement supported the "broadest possible variety of gTLD applicants". Your final "whereas" clause not justified. The Mexico document also refers to "substantial pent-up demand for new gTLDs" and "We do NOT believe in an interim third round with an arbitrarily limited number of applications as a "trial run"" (emphasis in the original). This also seems contrary to your penultimate whereas clause. Many of the issues mentioned in the Mexico declaration have been addressed, perhaps not to everyone's full satisfaction, but there's been a lot of work done, very publicly with ALAC's participation (for example ALAC commented on the GAC scorecard, how did that work out? GAC got about 80/90%, ALAC?) However, importantly the issue of fees has not been well addressed. Might also mention a less than perfect outreach process in this regard (Mike Silber's comments in Dakar helpful.) Perhaps the third whereas about law enforcement could be split off as a separate statement, the At Large's views more fully explained and re-submitted as a separate statement? Public interest. Please identify the specific public interest issues that must be addressed. When is the ALAC's January call (can't see it on the calender), the application process opens on January 12th, in 23 days. After all the opportunities At Large has had to comment I think it would be a grave mistake to call for suspension of the new gTLD process. Thanks, Adam
Hello,
This message is to announce my intention to move this motion at the *JANUARY* ALAC meeting.
This is being done in order to enable discussion to take place -- within ALAC, its gTLD working group, and the RALOs -- to determine the response to this issue which has been IMO simmering throughout the At-Large community.
We are told by many (and officially by ICANN) that the program is set and we should stop complaining, But to refuse to express the point of view of the public interest within ICANN -- even if it is contrary to the predominant wisdom -- if to fail at the very basics of At-Large's bylaw-mandated role.
Please distribute this to the four RALO mailing lists where I do not have posting rights, and translate if possible.
- Evan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS end-users and governments have only been invited to participate in the new gTLD program long after its foundation principles were determined;
WHEREAS most of the problems identified by the ALAC in its Mexico City Summit declaration related to the new-gTLD program have not been satisfactorily addressed and indeed some have worsened;
WHEREAS numerous complaints from governments, intergovernmental organizations and other bodies have indicated that law enforcement and public-protection measures in the current design of the gTLD program are insufficient;
WHEREAS the ICANN Board, without explanation, has refused the cross-community endorsement of the Joint Applicant Support Working Group recommendations to reduce costs of new gTLD in developing economies independent of any fixed fund;
WHEREAS the absence of a staggered release schedule or a fixed timetable for future rounds severely inhibits ICANN's ability to correct mistakes in the proposed application round;
and
WHEREAS ICANN has still not convincingly demonstrated the end-user need or benefit of a simultaneous launch of hundreds of new TLDs;
RESOLVED THAT the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) convey to the ICANN Board and community the dissatisfaction of At-Large with the new gTLD program in its current form, and explicitly advises that its implementation would be harmful to the public interest. We request that implementation of the program be suspended until necessary public-interest modifications are implemented. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
First a disclosure. I have horses in this race, so I don't want to see the program derailed. At the same time, I think the resolution below is too broad and vague in two respects: it doesn't give the reader a fair indication of the nature of the objections and it doesn't provide any specific solution beyond suspension of the program. For those reasons, I don't think the resolution will accomplish much. On the specific objections, the second Whereas clause mentions the failure to address the points in the ALAC's Mexico City Declaration (http://www.atlarge.icann.org/files/atlarge/correspondence-05mar09-en.pdf), which I would probably link (the New TLD discussion is on pages 13-15). The Mexico City Declaration was nice piece of collective work by the members of the ALAC that starts with this general introduction: "We agree with and support the expedient introduction of new gTLDs, especially those offering support for IDNs. In fact, we believe that a number of components of the proposed policy present unnecessary barriers to entry for the broadest possible variety of gTLD applicants." I think a better a resolution would reiterate this point and then tick through the nine specific issues raised in the Mexico City Declaration and proscribe specific places where program changes could be made to accommodate those concerns. While the language of the Guidebook is fixed, at least half of the issues raised in Mexico City relate to the objections process and the objections resolution providers, which are issues that the ALAC still could affect for the better. Bret On Dec 18, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hello,
This message is to announce my intention to move this motion at the *JANUARY* ALAC meeting.
This is being done in order to enable discussion to take place -- within ALAC, its gTLD working group, and the RALOs -- to determine the response to this issue which has been IMO simmering throughout the At-Large community.
We are told by many (and officially by ICANN) that the program is set and we should stop complaining, But to refuse to express the point of view of the public interest within ICANN -- even if it is contrary to the predominant wisdom -- if to fail at the very basics of At-Large's bylaw-mandated role.
Please distribute this to the four RALO mailing lists where I do not have posting rights, and translate if possible.
- Evan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS end-users and governments have only been invited to participate in the new gTLD program long after its foundation principles were determined;
WHEREAS most of the problems identified by the ALAC in its Mexico City Summit declaration related to the new-gTLD program have not been satisfactorily addressed and indeed some have worsened;
WHEREAS numerous complaints from governments, intergovernmental organizations and other bodies have indicated that law enforcement and public-protection measures in the current design of the gTLD program are insufficient;
WHEREAS the ICANN Board, without explanation, has refused the cross-community endorsement of the Joint Applicant Support Working Group recommendations to reduce costs of new gTLD in developing economies independent of any fixed fund;
WHEREAS the absence of a staggered release schedule or a fixed timetable for future rounds severely inhibits ICANN's ability to correct mistakes in the proposed application round;
and
WHEREAS ICANN has still not convincingly demonstrated the end-user need or benefit of a simultaneous launch of hundreds of new TLDs;
RESOLVED THAT the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) convey to the ICANN Board and community the dissatisfaction of At-Large with the new gTLD program in its current form, and explicitly advises that its implementation would be harmful to the public interest. We request that implementation of the program be suspended until necessary public-interest modifications are implemented. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (7)
-
Adam Peake -
Antony Van Couvering -
Bret Fausett -
cdel.firsthand.net -
Evan Leibovitch -
John R. Levine -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond