March 2011 - NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

ALAC Statement on the Proposed Recommendation for a Global Outreach Program - Call for comments
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 30, 2011

March 30, 2011

Dear All, On behalf of Olivier Crépin-Leblond, ALAC Chair, please find the draft ALAC Statement on the Proposed Recommendation for a Global Outreach Program (see: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Statement+on+the+Prop osed+Recommendation+for+a+Global+Outreach+Program+-+March+2011) which has been drafted by Carlton Samuels. The public comment announcement for this issue is available at: http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-outreach. This public comment closes on Sunday, 10 April. Please add your suggestions or revisions using the comments function on the wiki page above or send At-Large staff an e-mail at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org by 23:59 UTC on Friday, 1 April. An ALAC vote will begin shortly thereafter. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, ICANN At-Large Staff

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
by Beau Brendler March 29, 2011

March 29, 2011

My apologies, Richard. I see you left Neustar in 2008. You're no longer SVP at Demand Media after the eNom acquisition? I was going by your LinkedIn profile. -----Original Message----- >From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal(a)me.com> >Sent: Mar 29, 2011 4:35 PM >To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net>, NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard > >I am not an executive at a registry, registrar or any other company. i am currently unemployed and have been for 18 months > >My main concern with the ALAC Scorecard paper is that it asks for a fundamental restructuring of the applicant selection process - i.e. it asks for a method whereby applications will be 'limited'. This is not something the GAC have asked for in their Scorecard, and in my opinion it would require at least nine months of policy and drafting work to try and find an equitable procedure for such limitation. > >As there has been no plan to limit in the last three versions of the AG I think there are more potential applicants than whatever limitation number is decided. Simply put, this limitation mechanism would need to find a rationale way for us to decide that the .NYC application (say) was allowed proceed, and the .PARIS application (say) was not. > >'Limitation' is a position the ALAC is free to endorse, but it's not clear to me that ALAC members appreciate the implication of the recommendation. Does general ALAC membership understand that this recommendation is not requested by the GAC and would substantially delay AG approval? > >Thanks > >Richard > > > > >On Mar 29, 2011, at 9:34 AM, Beau Brendler wrote: > >> In answer to the second part of Avri's question: With all due respect for Antony and Richard, both are CEO/executive-level at for-profit registries and engaged in business development for their companies. Registries are amply represented by other constituencies in ICANN. They hardly need NARALO to get their points across as "individual Internet users." >> >> I would go so far to suggest that NARALO and ALAC spend their valuable volunteer time engaging and working with the user community to make sure its point of view, which is not tied to corporate profits, is heard, and let registry and registrar executives use the significant, well-established ICANN venues for their agendas. >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com> >>> Sent: Mar 26, 2011 5:11 PM >>> To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> does this meant the RALO's will do a quick vote on the ALAC scorecard position? Or will an ALAC vote be enough. Or is the sort of this that the ExecutiveCommittee can take care of? >>> >>> Also, couldn't either of the two gentleman join their respective RALO as individuals even if they had the opportunity to be observers in a GNSO constituency? >>> >>> with kind regards, >>> a. >>> >>> On 26 Mar 2011, at 14:13, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >>> >>>> In the meantime, let's first see if there's even interest in principle about >>>> any of the "impossible" things we're asking for before sinking substantial >>>> volunteer time into the details. >>> >>> >>> ------ >>> NA-Discuss mailing list >>> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss >>> >>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >>> ------ >> >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss >> >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >> ------ >

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Comments on the GAC Scorecard
by Carlton Samuels March 28, 2011

March 28, 2011

Dear Avri: With respect, I do think you may have miscast my suggestion contained in the final paragraph...and in so doing, alter fundamentally what I was saying. Many processes reverentially agreed by good people give wrong, even abhorrent, results. I really was not saying..or even suggesting.... that the process - any process - in this context is stopped or reversed purely because one disagrees. My position is really more prosaic; it is to caution that because the idea did not prevail for this or any process, it is necessarily wrong and thus a candidate to be banished from 'polite' discourse here forward. Apropos, the tribulations of one Galileo Galilei... it took the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith until almost the end of the 20th Century to acknowledge the fact and truth of heliocentrism....... Go figure. ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 2:55 PM, <na-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > wrote: > Send NA-Discuss mailing list submissions to > na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > na-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > na-discuss-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of NA-Discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: DRAFT ALAC Response to GAC Scorecard (Carlton Samuels) > 2. Re: DRAFT ALAC Response to GAC Scorecard (Avri Doria) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:17:50 -0500 > From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] DRAFT ALAC Response to GAC Scorecard > To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Cc: na-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Message-ID: > <AANLkTi=BHb0AXzmrznEfERfRJFakSsdJacoAGA8XQAdX(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Dear Colleagues: > It is not unusual for a draft of an ALAC Statement to come from the pen and > intuit of a few; someone[s] has[ve] to start the work, usually with the > understanding that they draw on their own sense of the community's temper > and interests. > > Furthermore, it is not unusual for this said statement to be substantially > rephrased, once subject to scrutiny of the At-Large community in general > and > the full ALAC slate; every draft statement must be circulated for comment > and regions may direct their representatives' concern to the entire > statement or, specific areas of it. > > Finally, consensus in this context does not mean we all agree on all > matters. Rather it means that there is substantial agreement across the > board by a wide cross-section of the At-Large community. > > For example, I don't particularly like the tabulation format because I am > inclined to believe that there is a psychology at work as part of any > communique. That aside, I am in favour of emphasizing the issues that are > a) very important to the At-Large b) The issues on which we are apart from > the protagonists. The wholesale adoption of a format from one protagonist > sends a certain message that is, in my view, best avoided. But this is > just me and my sensitivities displayed, crafted from my years of active > observation in places where I'm actively hobbled by one or other reason but > yet a participant in all kinds of political manoeuvres. > > Reasonable people can agree to disagree, agreeably. But I must insist, > even > vehemently, that I have long rejected the doctrine of inerrancy, whether > propagated for or on behalf of the Bishop of Rome, the ICANN Board or, for > that matter, the GNSO. > > Kind regards, > Carlton Samuels > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > ============================= > > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:00 PM, < > na-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > wrote: > > > Send NA-Discuss mailing list submissions to > > na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > na-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > na-discuss-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of NA-Discuss digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Call for comments on NTIA NOI for the IANA functions - > > deadline 23 March (Eric Brunner-Williams) > > 2. Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC > > scorecard (Antony Van Couvering) > > 3. Re: Edits and comments to NARALO/ ALAC position statement on > > GAC scorecard (Richard Tindal) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:28:35 -0700 > > From: Antony Van Couvering <avc(a)avc.vc> > > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position > > statement on GAC scorecard > > To: "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Discuss" > > <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > Cc: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > Message-ID: <30E785AA-D2DB-4C8A-8B29-F3C398B9A762(a)avc.vc> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I'm writing in regard to the paper put together by Evan Liebovitch and > > others ( > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/alac+response+to+the+gac+gtld+s… > ), > > which I find to be problematic on many fronts. The paper purports to be > a > > response by NARALO/ALAC to the GAC scorecard. In reality, however, it is > > the point of view of just a few individuals, and in my view seriously > > misrepresents the points of view of many ALAC participants. My responses > > are not as organized or concise as they might be, but I note the March 25 > > deadline for comments. I am sure there are errors of grammar and > spelling > > and in some cases (hopefully very few) of sense. > > > > (Note: For all intents and purposes, my "constituency" within ICANN is as > a > > member of NARALO. Although my company wishes to provide services to new > > gTLD applicants, it is not a member of the registry constituency > (refused) > > or the business constituency (refused.) As a North American resident, as > a > > longtime NARALO commenter and participant, and as an otherwise "homeless" > > participant (no stakeholder group will have me) in the ICANN process, I > > would like to offer my thoughts and amendments.) > > > > There are many points in this document that I agree with, and many where > I > > DISAGREE (in caps throughout for ease of reference). The document is > > thorough and well-drafted, but I don't believe it should be put out as > is, > > for reasons that I lay out below. > > > > I offer my thoughts with a constructive spirit to try to present the > Board > > with a document that truly represents consensus and has the broad support > of > > the ALAC community. Where I have referenced outside materials, I have > added > > references in brackets and capital letters. > > > > Antony Van Couvering > > > > ++++++++++ > > > > I. THIS PAPER SHOULDN'T BE COMMUNICATED WITHOUT CONSENSUS > > > > This document should not be put as an ALAC document, even with caveats, > > until there is some certainty that it approximates the point of view of > ALAC > > members. From what I have seen -- and I would be happy to be corrected > -- > > the only inputs have come from one NARALO member and one EURALO member, > with > > a couple of other small comments. > > > > The document notes: > > > > "It must be emphasised that, because of the extremely compressed timeline > > allowed for this response, ALAC has not received the broad At-Large > > community feedback and buy-in that such a statement would normally > warrant. > > While its authors have solicited comment and ALAC endorsement, this > > statement is still subject to review and possible refinement pending > broader > > At-Large distribution." > > > > So, as it stands, it is the work of just a few people. I don't see the > > value of putting out a position paper that doesn't represent the views of > > NARALO or ALAC, in fact it may be harmful. If this position paper > doesn't > > represent an ALAC consensus, or note the areas of consensus and > > non-consensus, then it shouldn't be published. > > > > One of the areas where ALAC has been very useful (and consistent) is in > its > > insistence on consensus and transparency. The ALAC statement of Nov 2010 > > [A] says: "In order to ensure that the entire At-Large community had the > > opportunity to review the five statements, and for their perspectives to > be > > taken into account, the ALAC resolved upon a process of consultation and > > amendment for the statements by resolution at its 24th March 2009 > > teleconference. As a result, the Summit Working Group statement was > opened > > for public comments by the At-Large community on 1st April, closing on > 11th > > April. The New GTLD Working Group then amended the statement to > incorporate > > comments received." > > > > It strikes me that the above statement is a good method for achieving > > consensus, whereas a position authored by just a few, without > consultation, > > is not. > > > > II. AREAS OF AGREEMENT / CONCERN / DISAGREEMENT > > > > The paper makes some good points but also puts forward positions that not > > only disagree with the previous hard-fought community consensus, they in > > some cases disagree with previous ALAC consensus positions. As the ALAC > > said recently [B], "we have serious concerns regarding what we consider > to > > be backwards steps from areas of community consensus." It is important > that > > we respect the community consensus, and the Guidebook, which has been > > through years of examination, does represent that consensus, even if it > > doesn't represent the views of ALAC 100%. > > > > To the paper itself: > > > > 1. Section entitled "Thematic Response." The draft paper says: "ALAC has > > always had significant challenges regarding both the processes taken to > > produce the current Applicant Guidebook (AG) as well as its result." I > > don't think this is entirely true. For one thing, one of the loudest > voices > > to initiate the current process came from the ALAC, stemming directly > from > > the flawed sponsorship round, of which .XXX is the last progeny. [C] > > > > In that report, and in subsequent statements, ALAC has emphasized to > ICANN > > that policy should be the result of consultations and consensus from the > > whole community. Given that the guidebook represents close to 3 years > of > > continual discussion, which has drawn out all the arguments pro and con, > > which was initiated by the GNSO and examined closely by every > constituency, > > advisory committee, and stakeholder group, this process better represents > > rough consensus among the entire community than any other ICANN policy > ever > > proposed. > > > > > > 2. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper purports to have ALAC agreeing > > with the GAC to eliminate Module 6, the "morality clause." It claims > that > > in Mexico City, the ALAC said that "ICANN's obsession with a judicial, > > adversarial process provides a barrier to legitimate objections and > needless > > expense to TLD applicants defending against trivial, unsustainable > > objections." I agree that the morality clause is very silly [D], but it > > pays to be careful about what we're talking about, and assertions that > might > > not sustainable when examined. I DISAGREE with the conclusion. > > > > First, the ALAC said nothing in Mexico City about obsessions by ICANN > with > > adversarial procedures. [E] For another, that's not what the procedure > as > > outlined in the Guidebook does. Finally, although the GAC did say that > they > > wanted to jettison Module 6, that's not where they ended up after meeting > > with the Board. Recall that the scorecard has now been the subject of > > several intensive meetings between the GAC and the Board, and both sides > > have modified their positions. The GAC indicated in Brussels that its > > concern relates to requiring governments to use this objection process. > The > > Board and GAC therefore agreed that it would be consistent with GAC > advice > > to leave the provision for Limited Public Interest Objections in the > > Guidebook for general purposes, but the GAC (as a whole) would not be > > obligated to use the objection process in order to give advice. There > > should not be the implementation of an entirely new objection procedure > that > > is a complete turn-around from what ! > > is already in place, esp. when the GAC and the Board seem to have > reached > > an accommodation. > > > > 3. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says: "The public interest is > > best served by being reasonably liberal in string acceptance, lest ICANN > be > > drawn into unfamiliar territory of content-based judgements." I am in > > complete agreement with this. > > > > 4. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says: "The global > Internet-using > > public interest is badly served in being deprived of a TLD string (and a > > potential community focal point) simply because of the perceived insult > of a > > small number of national governments. The Internet does not exist to only > > provide information that pleases everyone." I am in complete agreement > with > > this. > > > > 5. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says: "As a replacement we > > endorse Scorecard #2.1 with the following conditions: A similar objection > > mechanism must exist for non-governmental organisations to launch > objections > > (either a better-resourced branch of ALAC, a revised version of the > > Independent Objector, or something similar)." DISAGREE. I note this > > statement calls for complete removal of ONLY the objection procedure > based > > on ?limited public interest.? The objection procedures that have been > > developed based on communty consensus should not be replaced with the GAC > > proposal for String Review. The current AGB objection procedure is a > > necessary part of the process. We disagree that the ALAC or any other > body > > should have an objection mechanism that is not agreed upon by the > community > > or currently defined in the AGB. > > > > 6. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (point 2): "2. The GAC > (and > > other bodies able to raise objections) should satisfy the broader > community > > that objections it will raise -- as a global advisory body -- reflect a > > reasonable consensus between members and do not just reflect the whim of > a > > small number of advocates." I support the concept that any advice from > the > > GAC must be based on a GAC consensus position. Individual governments > are > > able to use the public comment period and the objection procedure as a > means > > of voicing their concern. > > > > 7. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (points 6 and 7): "All > > objection processes must be transparent; specifically, anonymous > objections > > are explicitly NOT allowed; The Board must have ultimate decision making > > authority with the unimpeded right to override objection advice." I am > in > > complete agreement with these important points. > > > > 8. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (point 8): "Split > decisions > > -- in which even rough consensus between the GAC, ALAC and other > > stakeholders is impossible -- should weigh in favour of approving the > string > > under objection. Globally blocking a TLD string on public interest > grounds > > requires, in our view, consensus that the very existence of the string > > damages the public interest." DISAGREE. This particular point > highlights > > the very reason that there should not be a multi-party review for the > > objection procedure. Finding agreement between the GAC/ALAC/Other > > stakeholders will impede the objection process. Objections should be > filed > > by one party per one application, and reviewed by one evaluator. > > > > 9. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (point 9): "In agreeing > > with Scorecard #12, we also believe that it is simple common sense to be > > able to alert TLD applicants, as early in the application process as > > possible, to potential objections." DISAGREE. I oppose implementing any > > new procedure. The current process allows sufficient time for applicants > to > > mediate with objectors. > > > > 10. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (point 9): "Applicants, > > having entered such good-faith negotiations with potential objectors, > should > > be able to make minor changes to their applications in order to comply > with > > a negotiated settlement." I DISAGREE. There should be no changes to an > > application after submission; to do so brings up an entire set of > difficult > > complications -- for instance, should the changed application then be > > re-evaluated? > > > > 11. Theme 2 - trademarks. Generally, I have trouble with the sentence > > that says: "We support many of the Scorecard's name-protection measures > > which are consistent with the STI consensus recommendations and even a > few > > that go beyond." Does this mean that the paper supports those GAC > measures > > that are consistent with the STI, but not others? Or does it mean that > it > > supports all the GAC measures, many of which are consistent with the STI? > > Which are which? In many of the points regarding trademarks, I DISAGREE > > with the positions taken by this paper > > > > In general, I support the guidebook on the following points (with > reasons): > > > > -- I agree with the guidebook, that all trademarks for nations and > > supranations shall be accepted into the Trademark Clearinghouse. A date > of > > acceptance cut-off will not be utilized, as this rewards bad actors from > > previous rounds. > > > > -- There should be a Sunrise OR IP Claims, but not both. Having both is > > redundant and circular, and imposes significant costs on registry > operators, > > which will be passed onto registrants. > > > > -- Trademarks for IP Claims or Sunrise must be an exact match. Going > > beyond exact matches is unworkable and gives ICANN more discretionary > > power than any currently accepted TM law might. There shall be no > > requirement for post-launch IP Claims. > > > > -- Registries shall have discretion to restrict eligibility of > trademarks > > based on objective criteria reasonably related to the purpose of the TLD > > such as evidence of use, or class of goods and services (e.g. .shoe could > > restrict Sunrise to only trademark registrations that show use in > > shoe-related class of goods and services). > > > > -- There shall be no requirement for post-launch Sunrise TM Claims. > > > > -- Each trademark registration must be supported by evidence of use in > > order to be the basis of a URS complaint > > > > 12. The paper says, in regard to the URS: "A successful complainant > should > > have first right of refusal for transfer (#6.2.12)." DISAGREE This goes > > against the STI recommendation (as a side note, any time ALAC is going > > against community consensus, it should be noted.) In agreement with > > IRT/STI, I do not support the right of first refusal transfer of names > to > > URS complainants. The Uniform Rapid Suspension service is specifically > > that, suspension in order to stop the resolution of a domain name that is > > harmful or infringing. Any domain transfer should be awarded through the > > UDRP. > > > > 13. Expanding the URS beyond exact matches. DISAGREE. This is very > thin > > ice, for a few reasons. First, the obvious issues with free speech: > > extending the URS beyond exact matches is problematic and impedes freedom > of > > speech, for example ?wal-martsucks.tld?. Second, many brand names are > parts > > of common words. Would the huge bank "ING" be able to object to any > gerund > > or participle containing the letters "ing"? > > > > 14. The paper says, "In regard to Consumer Protection measures as stated > in > > Scorecard #6.4 (except for #6.4.4, see below), ALAC strongly agrees with > the > > GAC positions." DISAGREE. For one thing, it is inappropriate to say > that > > the ALAC agrees or disagrees with anything absent proper consensus, let > > along saying that it "strongly agrees." The GAC position, I feel, > comes > > from a lack of understanding of what a registry does; this may be true of > > anyone who hasn't run a registry, including some ALAC members. > > > > The GAC's positions 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 are ill-informed of the actual > registry > > function. The GAC scorecard 4.1 states: ?Amend the "Maintain an abuse > point > > of contact" paragraph in the DAG to include government agencies which > > address consumer protection.? > > All registry operators already must provide an abuse point of contact > > (within the registry administration staff). The public face of this POC > is > > an email, abuse(a)registry.TLD. The contact person then acts upon or > > notifies the appropriate party of any required action. The GAC scorecard > > seems to call for a listing of government agencies which address consumer > > protection which would be published on the registry website. This > request > > is outside the registry operator's purview. 4.2 states: ?A registry > > operator must assist law enforcement, government agencies and agencies > > endorsed by governments with their enquiries about abuse complaints > > concerning all names registered in the TLD, including taking timely > action, > > as required, to resolve abuse issues." > > > > This demand is acceptable with the condition that registry operators > should > > provide reasonable assistance to law enforcement (both civil and > criminal) > > consistent with applicable national law. Registry operators should not > be > > required to provide any proprietary data without a legitimate, legal > > request, in order to prevent violation of national privacy laws. > > > > 15. Theme 3 - Categories. The paper says, "Despite widespread community > > request, ICANN has not budged from its long-standing position of only two > > categories of applications -- "regular" and "community". This is despite > the > > fact that GNSO policy on gTLDs allows for categorization, and indeed > allows > > for differential pricing for different categories (another policy > > conveniently overlooked in all versions of the AG to date). The GAC > > Scorecard, in our view, simply adds one more strong voice to the need for > > categorization beyond what now exists. While arguments have been made -- > and > > should be heeded -- about the concern that categorizatioin mechanisms > would > > be subverted for financial gain (also known as "gamed"), ALAC holds the > view > > that such concerns are not sufficient to resist implementation of new > > necessary categories. Even if gaming succeeds, in our view it is > prefereable > > to let a few applications "slip through the cracks" than to deny the > public > > service and innovation pos! > > sible through creating a small number of new categories." > > > > VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE on nearly every point. Categories are implicity > > problematic and despite what the authors have written and what ALAC might > > feel on the subject, they have been rejected by the entire community time > > and time again. The designation of more categories beyond ?Community? > and > > ?Generic? raises more problems than it could possibly solve. > > > > 16. The paper says, "In principle, we endorse the GAC position of wanting > a > > special status for TLD names which indicate entire sectors which may be > > subject to regulation (such as .bank, .pharma, .lawyer). DISAGREE. I > > support the Board position and strongly disagree WITH allowing special > > status for certain regulated sectors. There are no proprietary rights to > > such words. The admission that ?we are unclear about what form? and ?how > > ..to verify and enforce? clearly presents the problem of creating Special > > Categories. These concerns are dealt with through the 5 processes > already > > in the Applicant Guidebook, and the position taken by the paper's authors > > creates new rights where none existed before -- in contravention of > earlier > > adopted ALAC positions taken with full ALAC consensus. The GAC proposal > is > > unnecessary as the underlying concern is already addressed by the > following > > mechanisms: (a) The GAC objection process (advice); (b) Background > > checks/vetting of applicants; (c) ! > > Community objection procedures; (d) Malicious activity controls; (e) IO > > Objections; (f) Public comment; and (g) Board?s ability to reject an > > application per Module 5.1. > > > > 17. Geographic Names -- broadly, I support the position taken by the > paper. > > It says, "We agree with the ICANN Board response of relying on > > pre-determined names." If geographical names beyond country names are to > be > > protected, they must come from an internationally recognized > authoritative > > list. I note that this discussion is for protection at the SECOND level. > > The GAC should NOT be able to unilaterally designate a word as > geographic. > > Many geographic names are also generic terms, as aptly described by > Board > > member Bruce Tonkin's .MARS illustration. Does Mars the planet have a > > better right to mars.TLD than Mars the chocolate bar? What if the > martians > > don't care? This problem is dealt with through the TM clearinghouse, URS > > and UDRP procedures. > > > > 18. Assistance for disadvantaged applicants. This is a very important > > topic, and my company has been active in supplying funds to developing > > ccTLDs because I believe that the Internet as a whole does better with > wide > > and diverse participation. The JAS WG has established that ?NEED? is the > > primary selective for applicant support. I fully supports the JAS WG > > proposal and Board's affirmation of, a matching system where providers of > > support and services would be matched with applicants that qualify based > on > > need. I do NOT support the GAC proposal that applications from a > specific > > region should be granted greater consideration for support, because this > is > > not indicative of need, but only of geography. > > > > 19. Operational readiness. The paper states, "We would note that only > the > > vested interests within ICANN are pushing for a massive round of > > simultaneous applications and approvals. We would advise a more staggered > > approach, with a steady timetable of approvals and delegations." > DISAGREE. > > Apart from the gratuitous editorializing (most ICANN participants have > a > > vested interest, including many in ALAC), this statement goes squarely > > against the GNSO policy and in addition flies in the face of all the > facts, > > science, and sober representations by technical people in the community. > > The root is monitored by everyday by multiple parties all around the > world. > > Delegation rate scenarios have been modeled and tested. There is no > > technical basis for limiting the number of new TLDs to be added to the > root. > > The Board did note, personnel capacity will limit the possibility of > > processing more than 1000 new TLDs/year. As noted by Steve Crocker, > adding > > 1000 TLDs annually to the root is ! > > similar to adding a drop of water into a liter-sized bottle. > > > > 20. Business and Market Considerations. The paper states, "ICANN should > > not be in the business of evaluating business models beyond the > > sustainability of the plans," and ""public benefit" declarations within > TLD > > applications will be of dubious benefit, and in any case subject to > > substantial modification (and difficulty of enforcement) > post-delegation." > > Completely agree. > > > > 21. Cross ownership. The paper states, "the requirement to use ICANN > > accredited registrars and to not self-distribute could jeopardize TLDs > that > > will have a specific regional focus or those using less common scripts or > > languages" and "There should be viable ways for single registrant TLDs to > > operate effectively." Completely agree. > > > > 22. Due diligence on applicants. I think the Board and the GAC actually > > agree on this topic, although the GAC wants to have "extra" checks that > they > > are however unable to define. I support that ICANN should make screening > as > > effective as possible. ICANN is willing to meet with law enforcement and > > other experts to ensure that all available expertise is focused on this > > issue. (ICANN notes however that there is no consistent definition of > > criminal behavior across multiple jurisdictions, and the existing > proposed > > Applicant Guidebook consciously targets "crimes of trust".) I agree with > > ALAC that drug crimes seem completely off-topic in this context. > > > > > > > > > > References: > > > > [A] > http://www.atlarge.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19apr09-en.htm > > [B] > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Additional+ALAC+Statement+on+Dr… > > [C] ALAC position on 2003 sponsored TLDs. > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/gtld-com/Arc00/msg00039.html > > [D] Blog post by Antony Van Couvering. > > http://www.namesatwork.com/blog/2008/10/30/icanns-morality-memo > > [E] "Statement on New gTLDs Applications Process v2," > > > https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?statement_on_new_gtlds_application… > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:59:40 -0700 > > From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal(a)me.com> > > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Edits and comments to NARALO/ ALAC position > > statement on GAC scorecard > > To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > Message-ID: <93B4629C-7DC1-4A6A-BCEB-8107369E4515(a)me.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII > > > > > > It would be good to see a substantive discussion of the many points > raised > > by Antony in his recent post - most of which I agree with. > > > > There doesn't seem to be a broad ALAC dialogue on this very important > > report. Some of the items in the report do not appear logical, and > other > > items > > seem to represent changes in GNSO policy recommendations. > > > > If accepted, the report's recommendations will significantly delay new > TLDs > > as extensive new processes and language will have to be developed for the > > Applicant Guidebook. > > A prime example is the implementation of a fair mechanism to introduce > TLDs > > in limited rounds. In 2 years discussion of that topic I have not yet > heard > > an implementation proposal that wouldn't favor well funded, > technologically > > savvy or politically connected applicants. > > > > With such limited input does this report truly represent the ALAC's > > position? > > > > Regards > > > > Richard Tindal > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 15:27:17 -0400 > From: Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com> > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] DRAFT ALAC Response to GAC Scorecard > To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Message-ID: <B76885D7-7889-4644-AF77-BAF257CE1F71(a)ella.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > On 27 Mar 2011, at 14:17, Carlton Samuels wrote: > > > Reasonable people can agree to disagree, agreeably. But I must insist, > even > > vehemently, that I have long rejected the doctrine of inerrancy, whether > > propagated for or on behalf of the Bishop of Rome, the ICANN Board or, > for > > that matter, the GNSO. > > > It is not a doctrine of inerrancy and to put it that way is quite > dismissive. > > There was a process, one that many At-large members participated in. > This process had an outcome that the Board then approved. > That is the foundation on which this program is being created, > and the time for criticizing that outcome that is long long past. > > To constantly go back and try to change things that you did not prevail on > several years ago or sometimes did not even a viewpoint on, and to use that > as a way to put a halt to the beginning of the new gTLD program is indeed a > problem and is something that I find a bit dubious. > > a. > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > > > End of NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 53, Issue 28 > ****************************************** >

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] DRAFT ALAC Response to GAC Scorecard
by Carlton Samuels March 27, 2011

March 27, 2011

Dear Colleagues: It is not unusual for a draft of an ALAC Statement to come from the pen and intuit of a few; someone[s] has[ve] to start the work, usually with the understanding that they draw on their own sense of the community's temper and interests. Furthermore, it is not unusual for this said statement to be substantially rephrased, once subject to scrutiny of the At-Large community in general and the full ALAC slate; every draft statement must be circulated for comment and regions may direct their representatives' concern to the entire statement or, specific areas of it. Finally, consensus in this context does not mean we all agree on all matters. Rather it means that there is substantial agreement across the board by a wide cross-section of the At-Large community. For example, I don't particularly like the tabulation format because I am inclined to believe that there is a psychology at work as part of any communique. That aside, I am in favour of emphasizing the issues that are a) very important to the At-Large b) The issues on which we are apart from the protagonists. The wholesale adoption of a format from one protagonist sends a certain message that is, in my view, best avoided. But this is just me and my sensitivities displayed, crafted from my years of active observation in places where I'm actively hobbled by one or other reason but yet a participant in all kinds of political manoeuvres. Reasonable people can agree to disagree, agreeably. But I must insist, even vehemently, that I have long rejected the doctrine of inerrancy, whether propagated for or on behalf of the Bishop of Rome, the ICANN Board or, for that matter, the GNSO. Kind regards, Carlton Samuels ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:00 PM, <na-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > wrote: > Send NA-Discuss mailing list submissions to > na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > na-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > na-discuss-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of NA-Discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Call for comments on NTIA NOI for the IANA functions - > deadline 23 March (Eric Brunner-Williams) > 2. Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC > scorecard (Antony Van Couvering) > 3. Re: Edits and comments to NARALO/ ALAC position statement on > GAC scorecard (Richard Tindal) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:28:35 -0700 > From: Antony Van Couvering <avc(a)avc.vc> > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position > statement on GAC scorecard > To: "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Discuss" > <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Cc: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Message-ID: <30E785AA-D2DB-4C8A-8B29-F3C398B9A762(a)avc.vc> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > Hi everyone, > > I'm writing in regard to the paper put together by Evan Liebovitch and > others ( > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/alac+response+to+the+gac+gtld+s…) > which I find to be problematic on many fronts. The paper purports to be a > response by NARALO/ALAC to the GAC scorecard. In reality, however, it is > the point of view of just a few individuals, and in my view seriously > misrepresents the points of view of many ALAC participants. My responses > are not as organized or concise as they might be, but I note the March 25 > deadline for comments. I am sure there are errors of grammar and spelling > and in some cases (hopefully very few) of sense. > > (Note: For all intents and purposes, my "constituency" within ICANN is as a > member of NARALO. Although my company wishes to provide services to new > gTLD applicants, it is not a member of the registry constituency (refused) > or the business constituency (refused.) As a North American resident, as a > longtime NARALO commenter and participant, and as an otherwise "homeless" > participant (no stakeholder group will have me) in the ICANN process, I > would like to offer my thoughts and amendments.) > > There are many points in this document that I agree with, and many where I > DISAGREE (in caps throughout for ease of reference). The document is > thorough and well-drafted, but I don't believe it should be put out as is, > for reasons that I lay out below. > > I offer my thoughts with a constructive spirit to try to present the Board > with a document that truly represents consensus and has the broad support of > the ALAC community. Where I have referenced outside materials, I have added > references in brackets and capital letters. > > Antony Van Couvering > > ++++++++++ > > I. THIS PAPER SHOULDN'T BE COMMUNICATED WITHOUT CONSENSUS > > This document should not be put as an ALAC document, even with caveats, > until there is some certainty that it approximates the point of view of ALAC > members. From what I have seen -- and I would be happy to be corrected -- > the only inputs have come from one NARALO member and one EURALO member, with > a couple of other small comments. > > The document notes: > > "It must be emphasised that, because of the extremely compressed timeline > allowed for this response, ALAC has not received the broad At-Large > community feedback and buy-in that such a statement would normally warrant. > While its authors have solicited comment and ALAC endorsement, this > statement is still subject to review and possible refinement pending broader > At-Large distribution." > > So, as it stands, it is the work of just a few people. I don't see the > value of putting out a position paper that doesn't represent the views of > NARALO or ALAC, in fact it may be harmful. If this position paper doesn't > represent an ALAC consensus, or note the areas of consensus and > non-consensus, then it shouldn't be published. > > One of the areas where ALAC has been very useful (and consistent) is in its > insistence on consensus and transparency. The ALAC statement of Nov 2010 > [A] says: "In order to ensure that the entire At-Large community had the > opportunity to review the five statements, and for their perspectives to be > taken into account, the ALAC resolved upon a process of consultation and > amendment for the statements by resolution at its 24th March 2009 > teleconference. As a result, the Summit Working Group statement was opened > for public comments by the At-Large community on 1st April, closing on 11th > April. The New GTLD Working Group then amended the statement to incorporate > comments received." > > It strikes me that the above statement is a good method for achieving > consensus, whereas a position authored by just a few, without consultation, > is not. > > II. AREAS OF AGREEMENT / CONCERN / DISAGREEMENT > > The paper makes some good points but also puts forward positions that not > only disagree with the previous hard-fought community consensus, they in > some cases disagree with previous ALAC consensus positions. As the ALAC > said recently [B], "we have serious concerns regarding what we consider to > be backwards steps from areas of community consensus." It is important that > we respect the community consensus, and the Guidebook, which has been > through years of examination, does represent that consensus, even if it > doesn't represent the views of ALAC 100%. > > To the paper itself: > > 1. Section entitled "Thematic Response." The draft paper says: "ALAC has > always had significant challenges regarding both the processes taken to > produce the current Applicant Guidebook (AG) as well as its result." I > don't think this is entirely true. For one thing, one of the loudest voices > to initiate the current process came from the ALAC, stemming directly from > the flawed sponsorship round, of which .XXX is the last progeny. [C] > > In that report, and in subsequent statements, ALAC has emphasized to ICANN > that policy should be the result of consultations and consensus from the > whole community. Given that the guidebook represents close to 3 years of > continual discussion, which has drawn out all the arguments pro and con, > which was initiated by the GNSO and examined closely by every constituency, > advisory committee, and stakeholder group, this process better represents > rough consensus among the entire community than any other ICANN policy ever > proposed. > > > 2. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper purports to have ALAC agreeing > with the GAC to eliminate Module 6, the "morality clause." It claims that > in Mexico City, the ALAC said that "ICANN's obsession with a judicial, > adversarial process provides a barrier to legitimate objections and needless > expense to TLD applicants defending against trivial, unsustainable > objections." I agree that the morality clause is very silly [D], but it > pays to be careful about what we're talking about, and assertions that might > not sustainable when examined. I DISAGREE with the conclusion. > > First, the ALAC said nothing in Mexico City about obsessions by ICANN with > adversarial procedures. [E] For another, that's not what the procedure as > outlined in the Guidebook does. Finally, although the GAC did say that they > wanted to jettison Module 6, that's not where they ended up after meeting > with the Board. Recall that the scorecard has now been the subject of > several intensive meetings between the GAC and the Board, and both sides > have modified their positions. The GAC indicated in Brussels that its > concern relates to requiring governments to use this objection process. The > Board and GAC therefore agreed that it would be consistent with GAC advice > to leave the provision for Limited Public Interest Objections in the > Guidebook for general purposes, but the GAC (as a whole) would not be > obligated to use the objection process in order to give advice. There > should not be the implementation of an entirely new objection procedure that > is a complete turn-around from what ! > is already in place, esp. when the GAC and the Board seem to have reached > an accommodation. > > 3. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says: "The public interest is > best served by being reasonably liberal in string acceptance, lest ICANN be > drawn into unfamiliar territory of content-based judgements." I am in > complete agreement with this. > > 4. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says: "The global Internet-using > public interest is badly served in being deprived of a TLD string (and a > potential community focal point) simply because of the perceived insult of a > small number of national governments. The Internet does not exist to only > provide information that pleases everyone." I am in complete agreement with > this. > > 5. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says: "As a replacement we > endorse Scorecard #2.1 with the following conditions: A similar objection > mechanism must exist for non-governmental organisations to launch objections > (either a better-resourced branch of ALAC, a revised version of the > Independent Objector, or something similar)." DISAGREE. I note this > statement calls for complete removal of ONLY the objection procedure based > on ?limited public interest.? The objection procedures that have been > developed based on communty consensus should not be replaced with the GAC > proposal for String Review. The current AGB objection procedure is a > necessary part of the process. We disagree that the ALAC or any other body > should have an objection mechanism that is not agreed upon by the community > or currently defined in the AGB. > > 6. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (point 2): "2. The GAC (and > other bodies able to raise objections) should satisfy the broader community > that objections it will raise -- as a global advisory body -- reflect a > reasonable consensus between members and do not just reflect the whim of a > small number of advocates." I support the concept that any advice from the > GAC must be based on a GAC consensus position. Individual governments are > able to use the public comment period and the objection procedure as a means > of voicing their concern. > > 7. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (points 6 and 7): "All > objection processes must be transparent; specifically, anonymous objections > are explicitly NOT allowed; The Board must have ultimate decision making > authority with the unimpeded right to override objection advice." I am in > complete agreement with these important points. > > 8. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (point 8): "Split decisions > -- in which even rough consensus between the GAC, ALAC and other > stakeholders is impossible -- should weigh in favour of approving the string > under objection. Globally blocking a TLD string on public interest grounds > requires, in our view, consensus that the very existence of the string > damages the public interest." DISAGREE. This particular point highlights > the very reason that there should not be a multi-party review for the > objection procedure. Finding agreement between the GAC/ALAC/Other > stakeholders will impede the objection process. Objections should be filed > by one party per one application, and reviewed by one evaluator. > > 9. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (point 9): "In agreeing > with Scorecard #12, we also believe that it is simple common sense to be > able to alert TLD applicants, as early in the application process as > possible, to potential objections." DISAGREE. I oppose implementing any > new procedure. The current process allows sufficient time for applicants to > mediate with objectors. > > 10. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (point 9): "Applicants, > having entered such good-faith negotiations with potential objectors, should > be able to make minor changes to their applications in order to comply with > a negotiated settlement." I DISAGREE. There should be no changes to an > application after submission; to do so brings up an entire set of difficult > complications -- for instance, should the changed application then be > re-evaluated? > > 11. Theme 2 - trademarks. Generally, I have trouble with the sentence > that says: "We support many of the Scorecard's name-protection measures > which are consistent with the STI consensus recommendations and even a few > that go beyond." Does this mean that the paper supports those GAC measures > that are consistent with the STI, but not others? Or does it mean that it > supports all the GAC measures, many of which are consistent with the STI? > Which are which? In many of the points regarding trademarks, I DISAGREE > with the positions taken by this paper > > In general, I support the guidebook on the following points (with reasons): > > -- I agree with the guidebook, that all trademarks for nations and > supranations shall be accepted into the Trademark Clearinghouse. A date of > acceptance cut-off will not be utilized, as this rewards bad actors from > previous rounds. > > -- There should be a Sunrise OR IP Claims, but not both. Having both is > redundant and circular, and imposes significant costs on registry operators, > which will be passed onto registrants. > > -- Trademarks for IP Claims or Sunrise must be an exact match. Going > beyond exact matches is unworkable and gives ICANN more discretionary > power than any currently accepted TM law might. There shall be no > requirement for post-launch IP Claims. > > -- Registries shall have discretion to restrict eligibility of trademarks > based on objective criteria reasonably related to the purpose of the TLD > such as evidence of use, or class of goods and services (e.g. .shoe could > restrict Sunrise to only trademark registrations that show use in > shoe-related class of goods and services). > > -- There shall be no requirement for post-launch Sunrise TM Claims. > > -- Each trademark registration must be supported by evidence of use in > order to be the basis of a URS complaint > > 12. The paper says, in regard to the URS: "A successful complainant should > have first right of refusal for transfer (#6.2.12)." DISAGREE This goes > against the STI recommendation (as a side note, any time ALAC is going > against community consensus, it should be noted.) In agreement with > IRT/STI, I do not support the right of first refusal transfer of names to > URS complainants. The Uniform Rapid Suspension service is specifically > that, suspension in order to stop the resolution of a domain name that is > harmful or infringing. Any domain transfer should be awarded through the > UDRP. > > 13. Expanding the URS beyond exact matches. DISAGREE. This is very thin > ice, for a few reasons. First, the obvious issues with free speech: > extending the URS beyond exact matches is problematic and impedes freedom of > speech, for example ?wal-martsucks.tld?. Second, many brand names are parts > of common words. Would the huge bank "ING" be able to object to any gerund > or participle containing the letters "ing"? > > 14. The paper says, "In regard to Consumer Protection measures as stated in > Scorecard #6.4 (except for #6.4.4, see below), ALAC strongly agrees with the > GAC positions." DISAGREE. For one thing, it is inappropriate to say that > the ALAC agrees or disagrees with anything absent proper consensus, let > along saying that it "strongly agrees." The GAC position, I feel, comes > from a lack of understanding of what a registry does; this may be true of > anyone who hasn't run a registry, including some ALAC members. > > The GAC's positions 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 are ill-informed of the actual registry > function. The GAC scorecard 4.1 states: ?Amend the "Maintain an abuse point > of contact" paragraph in the DAG to include government agencies which > address consumer protection.? > All registry operators already must provide an abuse point of contact > (within the registry administration staff). The public face of this POC is > an email, abuse(a)registry.TLD. The contact person then acts upon or > notifies the appropriate party of any required action. The GAC scorecard > seems to call for a listing of government agencies which address consumer > protection which would be published on the registry website. This request > is outside the registry operator's purview. 4.2 states: ?A registry > operator must assist law enforcement, government agencies and agencies > endorsed by governments with their enquiries about abuse complaints > concerning all names registered in the TLD, including taking timely action, > as required, to resolve abuse issues." > > This demand is acceptable with the condition that registry operators should > provide reasonable assistance to law enforcement (both civil and criminal) > consistent with applicable national law. Registry operators should not be > required to provide any proprietary data without a legitimate, legal > request, in order to prevent violation of national privacy laws. > > 15. Theme 3 - Categories. The paper says, "Despite widespread community > request, ICANN has not budged from its long-standing position of only two > categories of applications -- "regular" and "community". This is despite the > fact that GNSO policy on gTLDs allows for categorization, and indeed allows > for differential pricing for different categories (another policy > conveniently overlooked in all versions of the AG to date). The GAC > Scorecard, in our view, simply adds one more strong voice to the need for > categorization beyond what now exists. While arguments have been made -- and > should be heeded -- about the concern that categorizatioin mechanisms would > be subverted for financial gain (also known as "gamed"), ALAC holds the view > that such concerns are not sufficient to resist implementation of new > necessary categories. Even if gaming succeeds, in our view it is prefereable > to let a few applications "slip through the cracks" than to deny the public > service and innovation pos! > sible through creating a small number of new categories." > > VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE on nearly every point. Categories are implicity > problematic and despite what the authors have written and what ALAC might > feel on the subject, they have been rejected by the entire community time > and time again. The designation of more categories beyond ?Community? and > ?Generic? raises more problems than it could possibly solve. > > 16. The paper says, "In principle, we endorse the GAC position of wanting a > special status for TLD names which indicate entire sectors which may be > subject to regulation (such as .bank, .pharma, .lawyer). DISAGREE. I > support the Board position and strongly disagree WITH allowing special > status for certain regulated sectors. There are no proprietary rights to > such words. The admission that ?we are unclear about what form? and ?how > ..to verify and enforce? clearly presents the problem of creating Special > Categories. These concerns are dealt with through the 5 processes already > in the Applicant Guidebook, and the position taken by the paper's authors > creates new rights where none existed before -- in contravention of earlier > adopted ALAC positions taken with full ALAC consensus. The GAC proposal is > unnecessary as the underlying concern is already addressed by the following > mechanisms: (a) The GAC objection process (advice); (b) Background > checks/vetting of applicants; (c) ! > Community objection procedures; (d) Malicious activity controls; (e) IO > Objections; (f) Public comment; and (g) Board?s ability to reject an > application per Module 5.1. > > 17. Geographic Names -- broadly, I support the position taken by the paper. > It says, "We agree with the ICANN Board response of relying on > pre-determined names." If geographical names beyond country names are to be > protected, they must come from an internationally recognized authoritative > list. I note that this discussion is for protection at the SECOND level. > The GAC should NOT be able to unilaterally designate a word as geographic. > Many geographic names are also generic terms, as aptly described by Board > member Bruce Tonkin's .MARS illustration. Does Mars the planet have a > better right to mars.TLD than Mars the chocolate bar? What if the martians > don't care? This problem is dealt with through the TM clearinghouse, URS > and UDRP procedures. > > 18. Assistance for disadvantaged applicants. This is a very important > topic, and my company has been active in supplying funds to developing > ccTLDs because I believe that the Internet as a whole does better with wide > and diverse participation. The JAS WG has established that ?NEED? is the > primary selective for applicant support. I fully supports the JAS WG > proposal and Board's affirmation of, a matching system where providers of > support and services would be matched with applicants that qualify based on > need. I do NOT support the GAC proposal that applications from a specific > region should be granted greater consideration for support, because this is > not indicative of need, but only of geography. > > 19. Operational readiness. The paper states, "We would note that only the > vested interests within ICANN are pushing for a massive round of > simultaneous applications and approvals. We would advise a more staggered > approach, with a steady timetable of approvals and delegations." DISAGREE. > Apart from the gratuitous editorializing (most ICANN participants have a > vested interest, including many in ALAC), this statement goes squarely > against the GNSO policy and in addition flies in the face of all the facts, > science, and sober representations by technical people in the community. > The root is monitored by everyday by multiple parties all around the world. > Delegation rate scenarios have been modeled and tested. There is no > technical basis for limiting the number of new TLDs to be added to the root. > The Board did note, personnel capacity will limit the possibility of > processing more than 1000 new TLDs/year. As noted by Steve Crocker, adding > 1000 TLDs annually to the root is ! > similar to adding a drop of water into a liter-sized bottle. > > 20. Business and Market Considerations. The paper states, "ICANN should > not be in the business of evaluating business models beyond the > sustainability of the plans," and ""public benefit" declarations within TLD > applications will be of dubious benefit, and in any case subject to > substantial modification (and difficulty of enforcement) post-delegation." > Completely agree. > > 21. Cross ownership. The paper states, "the requirement to use ICANN > accredited registrars and to not self-distribute could jeopardize TLDs that > will have a specific regional focus or those using less common scripts or > languages" and "There should be viable ways for single registrant TLDs to > operate effectively." Completely agree. > > 22. Due diligence on applicants. I think the Board and the GAC actually > agree on this topic, although the GAC wants to have "extra" checks that they > are however unable to define. I support that ICANN should make screening as > effective as possible. ICANN is willing to meet with law enforcement and > other experts to ensure that all available expertise is focused on this > issue. (ICANN notes however that there is no consistent definition of > criminal behavior across multiple jurisdictions, and the existing proposed > Applicant Guidebook consciously targets "crimes of trust".) I agree with > ALAC that drug crimes seem completely off-topic in this context. > > > > > References: > > [A] http://www.atlarge.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19apr09-en.htm > [B] > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Additional+ALAC+Statement+on+Dr… > [C] ALAC position on 2003 sponsored TLDs. > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/gtld-com/Arc00/msg00039.html > [D] Blog post by Antony Van Couvering. > http://www.namesatwork.com/blog/2008/10/30/icanns-morality-memo > [E] "Statement on New gTLDs Applications Process v2," > https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?statement_on_new_gtlds_application… > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:59:40 -0700 > From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal(a)me.com> > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Edits and comments to NARALO/ ALAC position > statement on GAC scorecard > To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Message-ID: <93B4629C-7DC1-4A6A-BCEB-8107369E4515(a)me.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII > > > It would be good to see a substantive discussion of the many points raised > by Antony in his recent post - most of which I agree with. > > There doesn't seem to be a broad ALAC dialogue on this very important > report. Some of the items in the report do not appear logical, and other > items > seem to represent changes in GNSO policy recommendations. > > If accepted, the report's recommendations will significantly delay new TLDs > as extensive new processes and language will have to be developed for the > Applicant Guidebook. > A prime example is the implementation of a fair mechanism to introduce TLDs > in limited rounds. In 2 years discussion of that topic I have not yet heard > an implementation proposal that wouldn't favor well funded, technologically > savvy or politically connected applicants. > > With such limited input does this report truly represent the ALAC's > position? > > Regards > > Richard Tindal > > > ------------------------------ > > >

3 2

Call for comments on NTIA NOI for the IANA functions - deadline 23 March
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 27, 2011

March 27, 2011

Dear All, On behalf of Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, a call for comments on the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Notice of Inquiry (NOI) Request for Comments on the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions is being made. Information on the NOI is available at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/fr_ianafunctionsnoi_02252011.pdf. An At-Large Workspace has been created to collect comments on the six questions of the NOI from the At-Large community. The Workspace is available at: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Comments+on+NTIA+NOI+-+Marc h+2011. Please either use the edit function on the Workspace or submit comments. As the deadline to submit comments on the NOI is 31 March, the time-line for At-Large comments is as follows: 23 March 2011 - Deadline for At-Large comments 24 March 2011 - ALAC prepares draft statement 25 - 29 March 2011 - 5 day ALAC vote 31 March 2011 - NTIA deadline for comments If you have questions on the NOI, please contact At-Large Staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, ICANN At-Large Staff

3 2

Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond March 26, 2011

March 26, 2011

Hello Antony, thanks for your message commenting on the ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard. My answers are interspersed in your text. Please note that I have not had the time to consult with the wider At-Large to reply to your message in a timely manner, so these are IMHO. On 25/03/2011 17:28, Antony Van Couvering wrote : > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Antony Van Couvering <avc(a)avc.vc> > Date: 25 March 2011 17:28 > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement > on GAC scorecard > To: "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Discuss" < > na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Cc: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > Hi everyone, > > I'm writing in regard to the paper put together by Evan Liebovitch and > others ( > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/alac+response+to+the+gac+gtld+s…) > which I find to be problematic on many fronts. The paper purports to be a > response by NARALO/ALAC to the GAC scorecard. In reality, however, it is > the point of view of just a few individuals, and in my view seriously > misrepresents the points of view of many ALAC participants. My responses > are not as organized or concise as they might be, but I note the March 25 > deadline for comments. I am sure there are errors of grammar and spelling > and in some cases (hopefully very few) of sense. I appreciate that you think that it is the opinion of a handful of people but in reality there have been several face to face ALAC sessions and remote conference calls in the years leading to this statement, some as recently as in San Francisco. The views expressed in the document are as close to consensus as we might get. I am glad that you agree with many of them. Perhaps can we discuss the ones you disagree with. I'll try and take them one by one: > (Note: For all intents and purposes, my "constituency" within ICANN is as a > member of NARALO. Although my company wishes to provide services to new > gTLD applicants, it is not a member of the registry constituency (refused) > or the business constituency (refused.) As a North American resident, as a > longtime NARALO commenter and participant, and as an otherwise "homeless" > participant (no stakeholder group will have me) in the ICANN process, I > would like to offer my thoughts and amendments.) I appreciate that you are having trouble finding a "home" at ICANN. Nonetheless you cannot pass as a simple user when your company will stand to earn much directly from the new gTLD process. Okay, so you're an Internet user, but aren't you a little biased in your answers? > There are many points in this document that I agree with, and many where I > DISAGREE (in caps throughout for ease of reference). The document is > thorough and well-drafted, but I don't believe it should be put out as is, > for reasons that I lay out below. > > I offer my thoughts with a constructive spirit to try to present the Board > with a document that truly represents consensus and has the broad support of > the ALAC community. Where I have referenced outside materials, I have added > references in brackets and capital letters. This is much appreciated. Thanks. > Antony Van Couvering > > ++++++++++ > > I. THIS PAPER SHOULDN'T BE COMMUNICATED WITHOUT CONSENSUS > > This document should not be put as an ALAC document, even with caveats, > until there is some certainty that it approximates the point of view of ALAC > members. From what I have seen -- and I would be happy to be corrected -- > the only inputs have come from one NARALO member and one EURALO member, with > a couple of other small comments. For the reasons I have enumerated earlier, I'm afraid that is an incorrect allegation. That said, I agree that ALAC's point of view is never going to reach a full unanimous consensus - such is the nature of the diverse At-Large constituency out there. I think that the Board and the GAC, when reading At-Large statements, understands this. All we can purport to be doing, is to act in the best interests of Internet users and act as the relay to the majority of voices out there. Will some of the voices out there disagree with what the ALAC says? Absolutely, but that's the limitation of having such a diverse membership. We're not the politburo. > The document notes: > > "It must be emphasised that, because of the extremely compressed timeline > allowed for this response, ALAC has not received the broad At-Large > community feedback and buy-in that such a statement would normally warrant. > While its authors have solicited comment and ALAC endorsement, this > statement is still subject to review and possible refinement pending broader > At-Large distribution." > > So, as it stands, it is the work of just a few people. I don't see the > value of putting out a position paper that doesn't represent the views of > NARALO or ALAC, in fact it may be harmful. If this position paper doesn't > represent an ALAC consensus, or note the areas of consensus and > non-consensus, then it shouldn't be published. When I originally read the disclaimer, I thought: "why shoot ourselves in the foot?" Thinking again, I thought this was rather a very fair statement to make. Recognizing one's one limitations is one step towards a wiser response. > One of the areas where ALAC has been very useful (and consistent) is in its > insistence on consensus and transparency. The ALAC statement of Nov 2010 > [A] says: "In order to ensure that the entire At-Large community had the > opportunity to review the five statements, and for their perspectives to be > taken into account, the ALAC resolved upon a process of consultation and > amendment for the statements by resolution at its 24th March 2009 > teleconference. As a result, the Summit Working Group statement was opened > for public comments by the At-Large community on 1st April, closing on 11th > April. The New GTLD Working Group then amended the statement to incorporate > comments received." > > It strikes me that the above statement is a good method for achieving > consensus, whereas a position authored by just a few, without consultation, > is not. I'm afraid that you have an incomplete view of the path and work that took place to reach the statement we are working on now. This is not a one-off statement with no prior history. This is an established position developed bit by bit through meetings too numerous to be listed since the At-Large Summit in Mexico City. If we had the resources to do so, I'd be ever so happy to have this all documented and tracked - it would make for a great bottom-up consensus building manual. > II. AREAS OF AGREEMENT / CONCERN / DISAGREEMENT > > The paper makes some good points but also puts forward positions that not > only disagree with the previous hard-fought community consensus, they in > some cases disagree with previous ALAC consensus positions. As the ALAC > said recently [B], "we have serious concerns regarding what we consider to > be backwards steps from areas of community consensus." It is important that > we respect the community consensus, and the Guidebook, which has been > through years of examination, does represent that consensus, even if it > doesn't represent the views of ALAC 100%. I am rather baffled as to the meaning of this sentence. It reads as though you mean that the Applicant Guidebook, having been through various iterations, represents a consensus which ALAC has not reached? DISAGREE - why else, would the ALAC be asked formally by the Board and by the GAC to comment? > To the paper itself: > > 1. Section entitled "Thematic Response." The draft paper says: "ALAC has > always had significant challenges regarding both the processes taken to > produce the current Applicant Guidebook (AG) as well as its result." I > don't think this is entirely true. For one thing, one of the loudest voices > to initiate the current process came from the ALAC, stemming directly from > the flawed sponsorship round, of which .XXX is the last progeny. [C] > > In that report, and in subsequent statements, ALAC has emphasized to ICANN > that policy should be the result of consultations and consensus from the > whole community. Given that the guidebook represents close to 3 years of > continual discussion, which has drawn out all the arguments pro and con, > which was initiated by the GNSO and examined closely by every constituency, > advisory committee, and stakeholder group, this process better represents > rough consensus among the entire community than any other ICANN policy ever > proposed. Antony, you forget to mention a significant amount of interference making the process slow as ever because issues which were initially swept under the carpet end up stinking the whole room. I'm sure you'll agree with me that there are several version to history - neither of which require examining now. > > 2. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper purports to have ALAC agreeing > with the GAC to eliminate Module 6, the "morality clause." It claims that > in Mexico City, the ALAC said that "ICANN's obsession with a judicial, > adversarial process provides a barrier to legitimate objections and needless > expense to TLD applicants defending against trivial, unsustainable > objections." I agree that the morality clause is very silly [D], but it > pays to be careful about what we're talking about, and assertions that might > not sustainable when examined. I DISAGREE with the conclusion. Agreed that the ALAC conclusion may ruffle a few feathers, but it's a conclusion shared by many in the At-Large constituency. However, I appreciate that you have taken the time to analyse this below: > First, the ALAC said nothing in Mexico City about obsessions by ICANN with > adversarial procedures. [E] For another, that's not what the procedure as > outlined in the Guidebook does. Finally, although the GAC did say that they > wanted to jettison Module 6, that's not where they ended up after meeting > with the Board. Recall that the scorecard has now been the subject of > several intensive meetings between the GAC and the Board, and both sides > have modified their positions. The GAC indicated in Brussels that its > concern relates to requiring governments to use this objection process. The > Board and GAC therefore agreed that it would be consistent with GAC advice > to leave the provision for Limited Public Interest Objections in the > Guidebook for general purposes, but the GAC (as a whole) would not be > obligated to use the objection process in order to give advice. There > should not be the implementation of an entirely new objection procedure that > is a complete turn-around from what is already in place, esp. when the GAC > and the Board seem to have reached an accommodation. Ultimately, it is for the Board to decide on the ALAC's recommendations. Our staff has attempted to receive a clear indication of that the current position of the GAC and the Board are, but at the current time, neither of them have been published and we are working on older, concrete documents. We have made our position on Rec.6 known and I see no shift in this. [ note: I have erased the points which you are in agreement with for the sake of shortening this message ] > > 5. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says: "As a replacement we endorse > Scorecard #2.1 with the following conditions: A similar objection mechanism > must exist for non-governmental organisations to launch objections (either a > better-resourced branch of ALAC, a revised version of the Independent > Objector, or something similar)." DISAGREE. I note this statement calls > for complete removal of ONLY the objection procedure based on “limited > public interest.” The objection procedures that have been developed based on > communty consensus should not be replaced with the GAC proposal for String > Review. The current AGB objection procedure is a necessary part of the > process. We disagree that the ALAC or any other body should have an > objection mechanism that is not agreed upon by the community or currently > defined in the AGB. Thanks for pointing this out - perhaps there might be some refinement needed here. I don't think that there is an un-surmountable gap here and would welcome suggestions to articulate the ALAC's view. > > 8. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (point 8): "Split decisions > -- in which even rough consensus between the GAC, ALAC and other > stakeholders is impossible -- should weigh in favour of approving the string > under objection. Globally blocking a TLD string on public interest grounds > requires, in our view, consensus that the very existence of the string > damages the public interest." DISAGREE. This particular point highlights > the very reason that there should not be a multi-party review for the > objection procedure. Finding agreement between the GAC/ALAC/Other > stakeholders will impede the objection process. Objections should be filed > by one party per one application, and reviewed by one evaluator. I think that what's being said here is that the default for a string, is for it to be allowed, except when there is a consensus to block it. Not having such a default, Antony, will likely endanger the new gTLD process altogether. > 9. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (point 9): "In agreeing with > Scorecard #12, we also believe that it is simple common sense to be able to > alert TLD applicants, as early in the application process as possible, to > potential objections." DISAGREE. I oppose implementing any new procedure. > The current process allows sufficient time for applicants to mediate with > objectors. Discussions in San Francisco led us to think otherwise. At least that's from the majority of people I and other participants present spoke to. Even the GAC and the Board appear to come to an agreement on this. > 10. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (point 9): "Applicants, > having entered such good-faith negotiations with potential objectors, should > be able to make minor changes to their applications in order to comply with > a negotiated settlement." I DISAGREE. There should be no changes to an > application after submission; to do so brings up an entire set of difficult > complications -- for instance, should the changed application then be > re-evaluated? Again - that's not the tone I heard in the room. I don't see how this would be detrimental to Internet Users. It might even same applicants money and potential head-aches. > 11. Theme 2 - trademarks. Generally, I have trouble with the sentence > that says: "We support many of the Scorecard's name-protection measures > which are consistent with the STI consensus recommendations and even a few > that go beyond." Does this mean that the paper supports those GAC measures > that are consistent with the STI, but not others? Or does it mean that it > supports all the GAC measures, many of which are consistent with the STI? > Which are which? In many of the points regarding trademarks, I DISAGREE > with the positions taken by this paper Thanks for pointing this out. Perhaps could this be better worded - and since I realise that this is a sensitive issue, perhaps can we spell this out in a clearer way. > In general, I support the guidebook on the following points (with reasons): > > -- I agree with the guidebook, that all trademarks for nations and > supranations shall be accepted into the Trademark Clearinghouse. A date of > acceptance cut-off will not be utilized, as this rewards bad actors from > previous rounds. > > -- There should be a Sunrise OR IP Claims, but not both. Having both is > redundant and circular, and imposes significant costs on registry operators, > which will be passed onto registrants. See STI group report & ALAC minority report. I think the facts expressed in the statement go inline with ALAC's position then. > -- Trademarks for IP Claims or Sunrise must be an exact match. Going beyond > exact matches is unworkable and gives ICANN more discretionary power than > any currently accepted TM law might. There shall be no requirement for > post-launch IP Claims. Thanks for pointing this out actually. I think that this may have slipped by when the paper was drafted. I too support the exact match and I think many others have said the same. I think this might be an error and am glad you've caught it. > -- Registries shall have discretion to restrict eligibility of trademarks > based on objective criteria reasonably related to the purpose of the TLD > such as evidence of use, or class of goods and services (e.g. .shoe could > restrict Sunrise to only trademark registrations that show use in > shoe-related class of goods and services). > > -- There shall be no requirement for post-launch Sunrise TM Claims. > > -- Each trademark registration must be supported by evidence of use in > order to be the basis of a URS complaint See STI group report & ALAC minority report. I think the facts expressed in the statement go inline with ALAC's position then. > 12. The paper says, in regard to the URS: "A successful complainant should > have first right of refusal for transfer (#6.2.12)." DISAGREE This goes > against the STI recommendation (as a side note, any time ALAC is going > against community consensus, it should be noted.) In agreement with > IRT/STI, I do not support the right of first refusal transfer of names to > URS complainants. The Uniform Rapid Suspension service is specifically > that, suspension in order to stop the resolution of a domain name that is > harmful or infringing. Any domain transfer should be awarded through the > UDRP. See STI group report & ALAC minority report. I think the facts expressed in the statement go inline with ALAC's position then. > 13. Expanding the URS beyond exact matches. DISAGREE. This is very thin > ice, for a few reasons. First, the obvious issues with free speech: > extending the URS beyond exact matches is problematic and impedes freedom of > speech, for example “wal-martsucks.tld”. Second, many brand names are parts > of common words. Would the huge bank "ING" be able to object to any gerund > or participle containing the letters "ing"? See my note above. I personally agree with you. Could others please chime in on this too? > 14. The paper says, "In regard to Consumer Protection measures as stated in > Scorecard #6.4 (except for #6.4.4, see below), ALAC strongly agrees with the > GAC positions." DISAGREE. For one thing, it is inappropriate to say that > the ALAC agrees or disagrees with anything absent proper consensus, let > along saying that it "strongly agrees." The GAC position, I feel, comes > from a lack of understanding of what a registry does; this may be true of > anyone who hasn't run a registry, including some ALAC members. > > The GAC's positions 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 are ill-informed of the actual registry > function. The GAC scorecard 4.1 states: “Amend the "Maintain an abuse point > of contact" paragraph in the DAG to include government agencies which > address consumer protection.” > All registry operators already must provide an abuse point of contact > (within the registry administration staff). The public face of this POC is > an email, abuse(a)registry.TLD. The contact person then acts upon or notifies > the appropriate party of any required action. The GAC scorecard seems to > call for a listing of government agencies which address consumer protection > which would be published on the registry website. This request is outside > the registry operator's purview. 4.2 states: “A registry operator must > assist law enforcement, government agencies and agencies endorsed by > governments with their enquiries about abuse complaints concerning all names > registered in the TLD, including taking timely action, as required, to > resolve abuse issues." > > This demand is acceptable with the condition that registry operators should > provide reasonable assistance to law enforcement (both civil and criminal) > consistent with applicable national law. Registry operators should not be > required to provide any proprietary data without a legitimate, legal > request, in order to prevent violation of national privacy laws. Perhaps a refinement of the ALAC statement paragraph is required here. That said, I have heard it time and time again that the current procedures in place are very weak and just not good enough. Innocent Internet users are being scammed and have little recourse. Please be so kind to accept the victim's point of view to prevail here. > 15. Theme 3 - Categories. The paper says, "Despite widespread community > request, ICANN has not budged from its long-standing position of only two > categories of applications -- "regular" and "community". This is despite the > fact that GNSO policy on gTLDs allows for categorization, and indeed allows > for differential pricing for different categories (another policy > conveniently overlooked in all versions of the AG to date). The GAC > Scorecard, in our view, simply adds one more strong voice to the need for > categorization beyond what now exists. While arguments have been made -- and > should be heeded -- about the concern that categorizatioin mechanisms would > be subverted for financial gain (also known as "gamed"), ALAC holds the view > that such concerns are not sufficient to resist implementation of new > necessary categories. Even if gaming succeeds, in our view it is prefereable > to let a few applications "slip through the cracks" than to deny the public > service and innovation possible through creating a small number of new > categories." > > VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE on nearly every point. Categories are implicity > problematic and despite what the authors have written and what ALAC might > feel on the subject, they have been rejected by the entire community time > and time again. The designation of more categories beyond “Community” and > “Generic” raises more problems than it could possibly solve. At the 2010 EURODIG meeting in Madrid, a panel came to the conclusion that the *lack* of categories and the batching of all new gTLD applications into a "one size fits all" scenario was probably one of the factors delaying the whole new gTLD process. Some categories of new gTLD could have been launched years ago, had these been in place. I wonder... > 16. The paper says, "In principle, we endorse the GAC position of wanting a > special status for TLD names which indicate entire sectors which may be > subject to regulation (such as .bank, .pharma, .lawyer). DISAGREE. I > support the Board position and strongly disagree WITH allowing special > status for certain regulated sectors. There are no proprietary rights to > such words. The admission that “we are unclear about what form” and “how > ..to verify and enforce” clearly presents the problem of creating Special > Categories. These concerns are dealt with through the 5 processes already > in the Applicant Guidebook, and the position taken by the paper's authors > creates new rights where none existed before -- in contravention of earlier > adopted ALAC positions taken with full ALAC consensus. The GAC proposal is > unnecessary as the underlying concern is already addressed by the following > mechanisms: (a) The GAC objection process (advice); (b) Background > checks/vetting of applicants; (c) Community objection procedures; (d) > Malicious activity controls; (e) IO Objections; (f) Public comment; and (g) > Board’s ability to reject an application per Module 5.1. >From a user's point of view, anything which can help with certifying the genuine Web site is a good thing. Have you fallen prey to phishing? Whilst not having been affected personally, such ordeals have been widely reported. I should therefore be surprised that you do not agree with this measure. > 17. Geographic Names -- broadly, I support the position taken by the paper. > It says, "We agree with the ICANN Board response of relying on > pre-determined names." If geographical names beyond country names are to be > protected, they must come from an internationally recognized authoritative > list. I note that this discussion is for protection at the SECOND level. > The GAC should NOT be able to unilaterally designate a word as geographic. > Many geographic names are also generic terms, as aptly described by Board > member Bruce Tonkin's .MARS illustration. Does Mars the planet have a > better right to mars.TLD than Mars the chocolate bar? What if the martians > don't care? This problem is dealt with through the TM clearinghouse, URS > and UDRP procedures. Point taken. Glad we're in agreement. Not a strong point, although I really think this will be dealt with on a case by case basis. > > 19. Operational readiness. The paper states, "We would note that only the > vested interests within ICANN are pushing for a massive round of > simultaneous applications and approvals. We would advise a more staggered > approach, with a steady timetable of approvals and delegations." DISAGREE. > Apart from the gratuitous editorializing (most ICANN participants have a > vested interest, including many in ALAC), this statement goes squarely > against the GNSO policy and in addition flies in the face of all the facts, > science, and sober representations by technical people in the community. > The root is monitored by everyday by multiple parties all around the world. > Delegation rate scenarios have been modeled and tested. There is no > technical basis for limiting the number of new TLDs to be added to the root. > The Board did note, personnel capacity will limit the possibility of > processing more than 1000 new TLDs/year. As noted by Steve Crocker, adding > 1000 TLDs annually to the root is similar to adding a drop of water into a > liter-sized bottle. Point taken on the"gratuitous editorializing" - but with all due respect, I fear that you missed the point which was not primarily a technical one. The proposal of several waves of applications makes business sense in risk mitigation, as well as not making the first round as "possibly the only round ever". Making sure that there will be a second, third, fourth, etc. rounds will ease the pain for everyone and therefore makes sense, especially in the mind of the users who are going to have to absorb this flurry of new gTLDs. User confusion is something you need to think of too! > > > > References: > > [A] http://www.atlarge.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19apr09-en.htm > [B] > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Additional+ALAC+Statement+on+Dr… > [C] ALAC position on 2003 sponsored TLDs. > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/gtld-com/Arc00/msg00039.html > [D] Blog post by Antony Van Couvering. > http://www.namesatwork.com/blog/2008/10/30/icanns-morality-memo > [E] "Statement on New gTLDs Applications Process v2," > https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?statement_on_new_gtlds_application… Thank you for this extensive answer. It's been well thought out and I appreciate this. I hope that my answers have managed to shed some light on some of the parts which you might disagree with. I encourage others to speak too! Kindest regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

6 10

Re: [NA-Discuss] Edits and comments to NARALO/ ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
by Richard Tindal March 26, 2011

March 26, 2011

It would be good to see a substantive discussion of the many points raised by Antony in his recent post - most of which I agree with. There doesn't seem to be a broad ALAC dialogue on this very important report. Some of the items in the report do not appear logical, and other items seem to represent changes in GNSO policy recommendations. If accepted, the report's recommendations will significantly delay new TLDs as extensive new processes and language will have to be developed for the Applicant Guidebook. A prime example is the implementation of a fair mechanism to introduce TLDs in limited rounds. In 2 years discussion of that topic I have not yet heard an implementation proposal that wouldn't favor well funded, technologically savvy or politically connected applicants. With such limited input does this report truly represent the ALAC's position? Regards Richard Tindal

3 2

Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
by Antony Van Couvering March 25, 2011

March 25, 2011

Hi everyone, I'm writing in regard to the paper put together by Evan Liebovitch and others (https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/alac+response+to+the+gac+gtld+s…) which I find to be problematic on many fronts. The paper purports to be a response by NARALO/ALAC to the GAC scorecard. In reality, however, it is the point of view of just a few individuals, and in my view seriously misrepresents the points of view of many ALAC participants. My responses are not as organized or concise as they might be, but I note the March 25 deadline for comments. I am sure there are errors of grammar and spelling and in some cases (hopefully very few) of sense. (Note: For all intents and purposes, my "constituency" within ICANN is as a member of NARALO. Although my company wishes to provide services to new gTLD applicants, it is not a member of the registry constituency (refused) or the business constituency (refused.) As a North American resident, as a longtime NARALO commenter and participant, and as an otherwise "homeless" participant (no stakeholder group will have me) in the ICANN process, I would like to offer my thoughts and amendments.) There are many points in this document that I agree with, and many where I DISAGREE (in caps throughout for ease of reference). The document is thorough and well-drafted, but I don't believe it should be put out as is, for reasons that I lay out below. I offer my thoughts with a constructive spirit to try to present the Board with a document that truly represents consensus and has the broad support of the ALAC community. Where I have referenced outside materials, I have added references in brackets and capital letters. Antony Van Couvering ++++++++++ I. THIS PAPER SHOULDN'T BE COMMUNICATED WITHOUT CONSENSUS This document should not be put as an ALAC document, even with caveats, until there is some certainty that it approximates the point of view of ALAC members. From what I have seen -- and I would be happy to be corrected -- the only inputs have come from one NARALO member and one EURALO member, with a couple of other small comments. The document notes: "It must be emphasised that, because of the extremely compressed timeline allowed for this response, ALAC has not received the broad At-Large community feedback and buy-in that such a statement would normally warrant. While its authors have solicited comment and ALAC endorsement, this statement is still subject to review and possible refinement pending broader At-Large distribution." So, as it stands, it is the work of just a few people. I don't see the value of putting out a position paper that doesn't represent the views of NARALO or ALAC, in fact it may be harmful. If this position paper doesn't represent an ALAC consensus, or note the areas of consensus and non-consensus, then it shouldn't be published. One of the areas where ALAC has been very useful (and consistent) is in its insistence on consensus and transparency. The ALAC statement of Nov 2010 [A] says: "In order to ensure that the entire At-Large community had the opportunity to review the five statements, and for their perspectives to be taken into account, the ALAC resolved upon a process of consultation and amendment for the statements by resolution at its 24th March 2009 teleconference. As a result, the Summit Working Group statement was opened for public comments by the At-Large community on 1st April, closing on 11th April. The New GTLD Working Group then amended the statement to incorporate comments received." It strikes me that the above statement is a good method for achieving consensus, whereas a position authored by just a few, without consultation, is not. II. AREAS OF AGREEMENT / CONCERN / DISAGREEMENT The paper makes some good points but also puts forward positions that not only disagree with the previous hard-fought community consensus, they in some cases disagree with previous ALAC consensus positions. As the ALAC said recently [B], "we have serious concerns regarding what we consider to be backwards steps from areas of community consensus." It is important that we respect the community consensus, and the Guidebook, which has been through years of examination, does represent that consensus, even if it doesn't represent the views of ALAC 100%. To the paper itself: 1. Section entitled "Thematic Response." The draft paper says: "ALAC has always had significant challenges regarding both the processes taken to produce the current Applicant Guidebook (AG) as well as its result." I don't think this is entirely true. For one thing, one of the loudest voices to initiate the current process came from the ALAC, stemming directly from the flawed sponsorship round, of which .XXX is the last progeny. [C] In that report, and in subsequent statements, ALAC has emphasized to ICANN that policy should be the result of consultations and consensus from the whole community. Given that the guidebook represents close to 3 years of continual discussion, which has drawn out all the arguments pro and con, which was initiated by the GNSO and examined closely by every constituency, advisory committee, and stakeholder group, this process better represents rough consensus among the entire community than any other ICANN policy ever proposed. 2. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper purports to have ALAC agreeing with the GAC to eliminate Module 6, the "morality clause." It claims that in Mexico City, the ALAC said that "ICANN's obsession with a judicial, adversarial process provides a barrier to legitimate objections and needless expense to TLD applicants defending against trivial, unsustainable objections." I agree that the morality clause is very silly [D], but it pays to be careful about what we're talking about, and assertions that might not sustainable when examined. I DISAGREE with the conclusion. First, the ALAC said nothing in Mexico City about obsessions by ICANN with adversarial procedures. [E] For another, that's not what the procedure as outlined in the Guidebook does. Finally, although the GAC did say that they wanted to jettison Module 6, that's not where they ended up after meeting with the Board. Recall that the scorecard has now been the subject of several intensive meetings between the GAC and the Board, and both sides have modified their positions. The GAC indicated in Brussels that its concern relates to requiring governments to use this objection process. The Board and GAC therefore agreed that it would be consistent with GAC advice to leave the provision for Limited Public Interest Objections in the Guidebook for general purposes, but the GAC (as a whole) would not be obligated to use the objection process in order to give advice. There should not be the implementation of an entirely new objection procedure that is a complete turn-around from what is already in place, esp. when the GAC and the Board seem to have reached an accommodation. 3. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says: "The public interest is best served by being reasonably liberal in string acceptance, lest ICANN be drawn into unfamiliar territory of content-based judgements." I am in complete agreement with this. 4. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says: "The global Internet-using public interest is badly served in being deprived of a TLD string (and a potential community focal point) simply because of the perceived insult of a small number of national governments. The Internet does not exist to only provide information that pleases everyone." I am in complete agreement with this. 5. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says: "As a replacement we endorse Scorecard #2.1 with the following conditions: A similar objection mechanism must exist for non-governmental organisations to launch objections (either a better-resourced branch of ALAC, a revised version of the Independent Objector, or something similar)." DISAGREE. I note this statement calls for complete removal of ONLY the objection procedure based on “limited public interest.” The objection procedures that have been developed based on communty consensus should not be replaced with the GAC proposal for String Review. The current AGB objection procedure is a necessary part of the process. We disagree that the ALAC or any other body should have an objection mechanism that is not agreed upon by the community or currently defined in the AGB. 6. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (point 2): "2. The GAC (and other bodies able to raise objections) should satisfy the broader community that objections it will raise -- as a global advisory body -- reflect a reasonable consensus between members and do not just reflect the whim of a small number of advocates." I support the concept that any advice from the GAC must be based on a GAC consensus position. Individual governments are able to use the public comment period and the objection procedure as a means of voicing their concern. 7. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (points 6 and 7): "All objection processes must be transparent; specifically, anonymous objections are explicitly NOT allowed; The Board must have ultimate decision making authority with the unimpeded right to override objection advice." I am in complete agreement with these important points. 8. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (point 8): "Split decisions -- in which even rough consensus between the GAC, ALAC and other stakeholders is impossible -- should weigh in favour of approving the string under objection. Globally blocking a TLD string on public interest grounds requires, in our view, consensus that the very existence of the string damages the public interest." DISAGREE. This particular point highlights the very reason that there should not be a multi-party review for the objection procedure. Finding agreement between the GAC/ALAC/Other stakeholders will impede the objection process. Objections should be filed by one party per one application, and reviewed by one evaluator. 9. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (point 9): "In agreeing with Scorecard #12, we also believe that it is simple common sense to be able to alert TLD applicants, as early in the application process as possible, to potential objections." DISAGREE. I oppose implementing any new procedure. The current process allows sufficient time for applicants to mediate with objectors. 10. Scorecard Items 1, 2.1, 12 - The paper says (point 9): "Applicants, having entered such good-faith negotiations with potential objectors, should be able to make minor changes to their applications in order to comply with a negotiated settlement." I DISAGREE. There should be no changes to an application after submission; to do so brings up an entire set of difficult complications -- for instance, should the changed application then be re-evaluated? 11. Theme 2 - trademarks. Generally, I have trouble with the sentence that says: "We support many of the Scorecard's name-protection measures which are consistent with the STI consensus recommendations and even a few that go beyond." Does this mean that the paper supports those GAC measures that are consistent with the STI, but not others? Or does it mean that it supports all the GAC measures, many of which are consistent with the STI? Which are which? In many of the points regarding trademarks, I DISAGREE with the positions taken by this paper In general, I support the guidebook on the following points (with reasons): -- I agree with the guidebook, that all trademarks for nations and supranations shall be accepted into the Trademark Clearinghouse. A date of acceptance cut-off will not be utilized, as this rewards bad actors from previous rounds. -- There should be a Sunrise OR IP Claims, but not both. Having both is redundant and circular, and imposes significant costs on registry operators, which will be passed onto registrants. -- Trademarks for IP Claims or Sunrise must be an exact match. Going beyond exact matches is unworkable and gives ICANN more discretionary power than any currently accepted TM law might. There shall be no requirement for post-launch IP Claims. -- Registries shall have discretion to restrict eligibility of trademarks based on objective criteria reasonably related to the purpose of the TLD such as evidence of use, or class of goods and services (e.g. .shoe could restrict Sunrise to only trademark registrations that show use in shoe-related class of goods and services). -- There shall be no requirement for post-launch Sunrise TM Claims. -- Each trademark registration must be supported by evidence of use in order to be the basis of a URS complaint 12. The paper says, in regard to the URS: "A successful complainant should have first right of refusal for transfer (#6.2.12)." DISAGREE This goes against the STI recommendation (as a side note, any time ALAC is going against community consensus, it should be noted.) In agreement with IRT/STI, I do not support the right of first refusal transfer of names to URS complainants. The Uniform Rapid Suspension service is specifically that, suspension in order to stop the resolution of a domain name that is harmful or infringing. Any domain transfer should be awarded through the UDRP. 13. Expanding the URS beyond exact matches. DISAGREE. This is very thin ice, for a few reasons. First, the obvious issues with free speech: extending the URS beyond exact matches is problematic and impedes freedom of speech, for example “wal-martsucks.tld”. Second, many brand names are parts of common words. Would the huge bank "ING" be able to object to any gerund or participle containing the letters "ing"? 14. The paper says, "In regard to Consumer Protection measures as stated in Scorecard #6.4 (except for #6.4.4, see below), ALAC strongly agrees with the GAC positions." DISAGREE. For one thing, it is inappropriate to say that the ALAC agrees or disagrees with anything absent proper consensus, let along saying that it "strongly agrees." The GAC position, I feel, comes from a lack of understanding of what a registry does; this may be true of anyone who hasn't run a registry, including some ALAC members. The GAC's positions 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 are ill-informed of the actual registry function. The GAC scorecard 4.1 states: “Amend the "Maintain an abuse point of contact" paragraph in the DAG to include government agencies which address consumer protection.” All registry operators already must provide an abuse point of contact (within the registry administration staff). The public face of this POC is an email, abuse(a)registry.TLD. The contact person then acts upon or notifies the appropriate party of any required action. The GAC scorecard seems to call for a listing of government agencies which address consumer protection which would be published on the registry website. This request is outside the registry operator's purview. 4.2 states: “A registry operator must assist law enforcement, government agencies and agencies endorsed by governments with their enquiries about abuse complaints concerning all names registered in the TLD, including taking timely action, as required, to resolve abuse issues." This demand is acceptable with the condition that registry operators should provide reasonable assistance to law enforcement (both civil and criminal) consistent with applicable national law. Registry operators should not be required to provide any proprietary data without a legitimate, legal request, in order to prevent violation of national privacy laws. 15. Theme 3 - Categories. The paper says, "Despite widespread community request, ICANN has not budged from its long-standing position of only two categories of applications -- "regular" and "community". This is despite the fact that GNSO policy on gTLDs allows for categorization, and indeed allows for differential pricing for different categories (another policy conveniently overlooked in all versions of the AG to date). The GAC Scorecard, in our view, simply adds one more strong voice to the need for categorization beyond what now exists. While arguments have been made -- and should be heeded -- about the concern that categorizatioin mechanisms would be subverted for financial gain (also known as "gamed"), ALAC holds the view that such concerns are not sufficient to resist implementation of new necessary categories. Even if gaming succeeds, in our view it is prefereable to let a few applications "slip through the cracks" than to deny the public service and innovation possible through creating a small number of new categories." VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE on nearly every point. Categories are implicity problematic and despite what the authors have written and what ALAC might feel on the subject, they have been rejected by the entire community time and time again. The designation of more categories beyond “Community” and “Generic” raises more problems than it could possibly solve. 16. The paper says, "In principle, we endorse the GAC position of wanting a special status for TLD names which indicate entire sectors which may be subject to regulation (such as .bank, .pharma, .lawyer). DISAGREE. I support the Board position and strongly disagree WITH allowing special status for certain regulated sectors. There are no proprietary rights to such words. The admission that “we are unclear about what form” and “how ..to verify and enforce” clearly presents the problem of creating Special Categories. These concerns are dealt with through the 5 processes already in the Applicant Guidebook, and the position taken by the paper's authors creates new rights where none existed before -- in contravention of earlier adopted ALAC positions taken with full ALAC consensus. The GAC proposal is unnecessary as the underlying concern is already addressed by the following mechanisms: (a) The GAC objection process (advice); (b) Background checks/vetting of applicants; (c) Community objection procedures; (d) Malicious activity controls; (e) IO Objections; (f) Public comment; and (g) Board’s ability to reject an application per Module 5.1. 17. Geographic Names -- broadly, I support the position taken by the paper. It says, "We agree with the ICANN Board response of relying on pre-determined names." If geographical names beyond country names are to be protected, they must come from an internationally recognized authoritative list. I note that this discussion is for protection at the SECOND level. The GAC should NOT be able to unilaterally designate a word as geographic. Many geographic names are also generic terms, as aptly described by Board member Bruce Tonkin's .MARS illustration. Does Mars the planet have a better right to mars.TLD than Mars the chocolate bar? What if the martians don't care? This problem is dealt with through the TM clearinghouse, URS and UDRP procedures. 18. Assistance for disadvantaged applicants. This is a very important topic, and my company has been active in supplying funds to developing ccTLDs because I believe that the Internet as a whole does better with wide and diverse participation. The JAS WG has established that “NEED” is the primary selective for applicant support. I fully supports the JAS WG proposal and Board's affirmation of, a matching system where providers of support and services would be matched with applicants that qualify based on need. I do NOT support the GAC proposal that applications from a specific region should be granted greater consideration for support, because this is not indicative of need, but only of geography. 19. Operational readiness. The paper states, "We would note that only the vested interests within ICANN are pushing for a massive round of simultaneous applications and approvals. We would advise a more staggered approach, with a steady timetable of approvals and delegations." DISAGREE. Apart from the gratuitous editorializing (most ICANN participants have a vested interest, including many in ALAC), this statement goes squarely against the GNSO policy and in addition flies in the face of all the facts, science, and sober representations by technical people in the community. The root is monitored by everyday by multiple parties all around the world. Delegation rate scenarios have been modeled and tested. There is no technical basis for limiting the number of new TLDs to be added to the root. The Board did note, personnel capacity will limit the possibility of processing more than 1000 new TLDs/year. As noted by Steve Crocker, adding 1000 TLDs annually to the root is similar to adding a drop of water into a liter-sized bottle. 20. Business and Market Considerations. The paper states, "ICANN should not be in the business of evaluating business models beyond the sustainability of the plans," and ""public benefit" declarations within TLD applications will be of dubious benefit, and in any case subject to substantial modification (and difficulty of enforcement) post-delegation." Completely agree. 21. Cross ownership. The paper states, "the requirement to use ICANN accredited registrars and to not self-distribute could jeopardize TLDs that will have a specific regional focus or those using less common scripts or languages" and "There should be viable ways for single registrant TLDs to operate effectively." Completely agree. 22. Due diligence on applicants. I think the Board and the GAC actually agree on this topic, although the GAC wants to have "extra" checks that they are however unable to define. I support that ICANN should make screening as effective as possible. ICANN is willing to meet with law enforcement and other experts to ensure that all available expertise is focused on this issue. (ICANN notes however that there is no consistent definition of criminal behavior across multiple jurisdictions, and the existing proposed Applicant Guidebook consciously targets "crimes of trust".) I agree with ALAC that drug crimes seem completely off-topic in this context. References: [A] http://www.atlarge.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19apr09-en.htm [B] https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Additional+ALAC+Statement+on+Dr… [C] ALAC position on 2003 sponsored TLDs. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/gtld-com/Arc00/msg00039.html [D] Blog post by Antony Van Couvering. http://www.namesatwork.com/blog/2008/10/30/icanns-morality-memo [E] "Statement on New gTLDs Applications Process v2," https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?statement_on_new_gtlds_application…

1 0

Call for comments on NTIA NOI for the IANA functions - deadline 23 March
by Eric Brunner-Williams March 25, 2011

March 25, 2011

Colleagues, On the subject of the NTIA's NOI for the IANA function, which is available at the following link: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/fr_ianafunctionsnoi_02252011.pdf. The ALAC draft text is available here: Question 1 on the necessity of a single contract for the "IANA function": https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Comment+on+NTIA+NOI+Questi… Question 2 on performance metrics in the contract(s) for the "IANA function": https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Comments+on+NTIA+NOI+Quest… Question 3 on root zone change requests, a specific function currently carried out within the IANA functions: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Comments+on+NTIA+NOI+Quest… Question 4 on the necessity and sufficiency of existing performance and reporting requirements for the IANA function: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Comments+on+NTIA+NOI+Quest… Question 5 on improvements or performance enhancements to the IANA function: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Comments+on+NTIA+NOI+Quest… Question 6 on security considerations and performance requirements for the IANA function: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Comments+on+NTIA+NOI+Quest… Some phrases picked more or less at random from the draft ALAC response to Question 1: "The ICANN, as a single entity, has so far lead the IANA functions with all the seriousness possible and has respected the contract with the US Government to the letter." and "ICANN has so far delivered well. Why try to fix something that is not broken?" I ceased attempting to inform the authors of the ALAC draft comments on the 22nd/23rd. It is reasonable to characterize my comments as dissimilar to the comments of the majority of the contributors to the ALAC draft comment, and having no informative effect. Having consulted to the IANA in 2007 on the transformation of the IANA's ticketing and queue management reporting system to the IAB, the anticeedents of the project that began a year later with the replacement of some of the perl-based tools with python-based tools, I have been reluctant to assert a qualitative difference in subject matter knowledge to the authors of the responses linked above based upon personal knowledge. I've tried persuasion rather than authority, to no effect. Today Olaf Kolkman, IAB Chair wrote the IETF-Announce list a request that substantive comments be sent to iab(a)iab.org. I will use that avenue, rather than remain in conflict with the other authors if the ALAC draft comment. Eric

1 0

Comment on the GAC Scorecard (2.2.3)
by Danny Younger March 23, 2011

March 23, 2011

Proposed comment: Regarding the GAC Scorecard point #2.2.3, The ALAC notes the Board’s position that the community objection process is intended to deal with applications where there is substantial opposition to the application from a significant portion of the community. The ALAC views the current stage of the ongoing .xxx drama as illustrative of the community objection process. We encourage the Board to consider whether the type and degree of community objection displayed in San Francisco offers the sufficiency in the new gTLD process to trump the goal of increasing competition and providing additional choice.

6 10