IMPORTANT: At-Large Objection Statements posted for RALO review - deadline for RALO advice to ALAC is March 5 2013
Dear All, Please see an important message being sent on behalf of Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Chair of the At-Large new gTLD Review Group: ** Dear All, As per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new gTLD application, (see one page PDF at http://bit.ly/how-ALAC-files-objection-to-new-gTLD ), the new gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG) have posted objection statements on community grounds to 5 new gTLD applications for Regional At-Large Organisation (RALO) review and advice to the ALAC. The gTLD RG drafted the statements based on the outcomes of its review and discussion of comments received by February 8, 2013 (see http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/2013q1/009493.html) All of the objection statements are on community objection grounds. The community objection grounds page at https://community.icann.org/x/QgkQAg lists four tests that would enable the Dispute Resolution Service Provider hearing the objection to determine whether there is substantial opposition from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be targeted. Note also that ALL four tests must be met for the objection to prevail. The 5 applications and objection statements, including the comments received by the gTLD RG on the applications can be found on the workspace at https://community.icann.org/x/soxwAg with 5 separate wiki pages for each new gTLD application, the objection statement and the comments received by the gTLD RG. Members of At-Large are invited to discuss and post questions or comments on these wiki pages. All RALOs must review EACH of the 5 gTLD applications and the associated information (objection statement, comments) on the wiki pages and decide if the objection statement drafted by the gTLD RG group supports the criterion for community objection. The RALO cannot modify any of the 5 objection statements, but must advise the ALAC as to whether the RALO EITHER: 1) supports the objection statement being filed by the ALAC against the new gTLD application OR 2) NOT support the objection statement being filed by the ALAC against the new gTLD application. This advice for each of the 5 objection statements must be sent to the ALAC by March 5, 2013, 23:59 UTC so that the ALAC can review the RALO advice before the end of the objection period on March 13, 2013. A conference call is tentatively scheduled on Thursday, February 28, 2013 (exact time will be confirmed by At-Large Staff) is being planned for RALO officers with the gTLD RG members to provide an overview of the process and to answer any questions they may have as to what is expected by the RALOs as per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new gTLD application. At-Large members are welcome to attend this call. Kind regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh ** Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of the ALAC E-mail: staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>
Dev, if you could be so kind, I would submit the following to public record: It is my opinion, based on the community at-large, that the overall direction being undertaken is not conducive to the 'core values' as stated in Section 2 of ICANN's bylaws. In reviewing the wiki pages (which should not be considered all-inclusive), along with formal statements submitted to the President and Board of ICANN, which have been distributed to the community as well, it is clear that the system is being 'GAMED' at this point - if not from the very start. To say that there have been no community objections for ANY of the 4 listed TLD applications below, having not met some criteria for 'Community Objection Grounds' is not responsible of the At-Large community to allow. Each of these 4 TLDs have had a number of objections. To say that these objections are unwarranted based on said criteria is again not acting responsibly toward the At-Large community. For the unititiated, the Community Objection Grounds are stated as follows (while not including the lentgthy details of the "tests" of: Community, Substantial Opposition, Targeting, Detriment for sake of space and time): * The community invoked by the objector is a clearly delineated community; and * Community opposition to the application is substantial; and * There is a strong association between the community invoked and the applied-for gTLD string; and * The application creates a likelihood of material detriment to the rights or legitimate interests of a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted.If we are to represent a valid voice as a RALO, we must also recognize that 'meeting the criteria established' does not consider the magnitude of the bylaws of either ICANN itself nor the bylaws of NARALO. Cordially submitted, RJGlass A@L ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Members of the new gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG) considered the comments from the At-Large community as of February 8 2013 regarding the applications for .amazon (https://community.icann.org/x/dAFlAg), .patagonia (https://community.icann.org/x/fgFlAg) .health (https://community.icann.org/x/0wZlAg) .nyc (https://community.icann.org/x/CYJEAg) None of the applications raised any limited public interest concerns (https://community.icann.org/x/QAkQAg) gTLD RG members ranked each factor of the four tests for community objection grounds ((https://community.icann.org/x/QgkQAg) based on the comments and discussions. Based on these rankings, the following are the decisions by the gTLD RG: Re: .amazon (https://community.icann.org/x/dAFlAg): There will be no drafting of an objection statement on community grounds for the application for .amazon given that the "detriment" test for community objection grounds was not passed. Re: .patagonia (https://community.icann.org/x/fgFlAg) There will be no drafting of an objection statement on community grounds for the application for .patagonia given that the "targeting" and "detriment" tests for community objection grounds were not passed. Re: .health (https://community.icann.org/x/0wZlAg) Objection statements on community grounds will be drafted for the applications for .health given that the four tests for community objection grounds were passed. The gTLD RG will attempt to put together the objection statements to the applications for .health in time for RALO review around 22 February 2013. Re: .nyc There will be no drafting of an objection statement on community grounds for the application for .nyc given the comments received as on February 8 2013 indicated that the initial objection concerns raised were being addressed. A late comment sent to the gTLD RG on 11 February 2013 was treated by the gTLD RG as being submitted too late for consideration. Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh gTLD RG chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________ From: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org> To: "afri-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <afri-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "apac-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <apac-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: "New gTLD Review Group (newgtldrg@atlarge-lists.icann.org)" <newgtldrg@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org>; "gtld-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <gtld-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:06 PM Subject: [NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: At-Large Objection Statements posted for RALO review - deadline for RALO advice to ALAC is March 5 2013
Dear All,
Please see an important message being sent on behalf of Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Chair of the At-Large new gTLD Review Group:
** Dear All,
As per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new gTLD application, (see one page PDF at http://bit.ly/how-ALAC-files-objection-to-new-gTLD ), the new gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG) have posted objection statements on community grounds to 5 new gTLD applications for Regional At-Large Organisation (RALO) review and advice to the ALAC.
The gTLD RG drafted the statements based on the outcomes of its review and discussion of comments received by February 8, 2013 (see http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/2013q1/009493.html)
All of the objection statements are on community objection grounds. The community objection grounds page at https://community.icann.org/x/QgkQAg lists four tests that would enable the Dispute Resolution Service Provider hearing the objection to determine whether there is substantial opposition from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be targeted. Note also that ALL four tests must be met for the objection to prevail.
The 5 applications and objection statements, including the comments received by the gTLD RG on the applications can be found on the workspace at https://community.icann.org/x/soxwAg with 5 separate wiki pages for each new gTLD application, the objection statement and the comments received by the gTLD RG. Members of At-Large are invited to discuss and post questions or comments on these wiki pages.
All RALOs must review EACH of the 5 gTLD applications and the associated information (objection statement, comments) on the wiki pages and decide if the objection statement drafted by the gTLD RG group supports the criterion for community objection.
The RALO cannot modify any of the 5 objection statements, but must advise the ALAC as to whether the RALO EITHER: 1) supports the objection statement being filed by the ALAC against the new gTLD application OR 2) NOT support the objection statement being filed by the ALAC against the new gTLD application.
This advice for each of the 5 objection statements must be sent to the ALAC by March 5, 2013, 23:59 UTC so that the ALAC can review the RALO advice before the end of the objection period on March 13, 2013.
A conference call is tentatively scheduled on Thursday, February 28, 2013 (exact time will be confirmed by At-Large Staff) is being planned for RALO officers with the gTLD RG members to provide an overview of the process and to answer any questions they may have as to what is expected by the RALOs as per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new gTLD application. At-Large members are welcome to attend this call.
Kind regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh
**
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of the ALAC E-mail: staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Therefore, I would urge NARALO to submit objections to each of the 4 TLDs under the 'Community Objection Grounds' based on the inherent responsibility of At-Large to represent the voice of those who do object, based on the terms may have been stated by those objectors.
Hi Randy, On 26 February 2013 21:25, RJ Glass <jipshida2@yahoo.com> wrote:
To say that there have been no community objections for ANY of the 4 listed TLD applications below, having not met some criteria for 'Community Objection Grounds' is not responsible of the At-Large community to allow.
Actually, it's the only response possible UNDER THE CURRENT OBJECTION PROCESS. Dev is not saying that there are no community objections -- but rather, that the only ones that met the specific criteria as described in the application process and previously designed and approved by At-Large, were the five objections against applications related to dot-health (and an IDN variant of health). This has been almost a year in-process, Randy, it hasn't just been sprung. In the case of .nyc, we have as an applicant the City of New York. It is very hard to override that with an objection, especially when the ICANN process mandates that local governmental approval is needed for any city-name TLD. So exactly on what grounds would the objection have been? As for Amazon and Patagonia, those objections did not meet the criteria of demonstrable harm to identifiable communities as defined in the application process. Now... there is a defined sub-process that evaluates geographic names as applied-for strings, but that on its own is out of At-Large's scope. The review group -- a good cross section of At-Large members (who are not "the usual suspects") evaluated the objections against specific criteria. ALAC has only limited and specific ways to launch an objection -- anything else needs to be done in the usual ALAC process, which ends in advice to the Board. NARALO is well within its rights to advance that, and I am happy to facilitate such action, should the region be so inclined. - Evan
Randy, I can appreciate your frustration, but Dev has been following the letter of the process which is akin to threading a needle. Has the system been gamed? I'm not sure the was a game to begin with if you get my meaning. -Garth From: newgtldrg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:newgtldrg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of RJ Glass Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:25 PM To: ICANN At-Large Staff; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: New gTLD Review Group (newgtldrg@atlarge-lists.icann.org); gtld-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [New gTLD RG] [NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: At-Large Objection Statements posted for RALO review - deadline for RALO advice to ALAC is March 5 2013 Dev, if you could be so kind, I would submit the following to public record: It is my opinion, based on the community at-large, that the overall direction being undertaken is not conducive to the 'core values' as stated in Section 2 of ICANN's bylaws. In reviewing the wiki pages (which should not be considered all-inclusive), along with formal statements submitted to the President and Board of ICANN, which have been distributed to the community as well, it is clear that the system is being 'GAMED' at this point - if not from the very start. To say that there have been no community objections for ANY of the 4 listed TLD applications below, having not met some criteria for 'Community Objection Grounds' is not responsible of the At-Large community to allow. Each of these 4 TLDs have had a number of objections. To say that these objections are unwarranted based on said criteria is again not acting responsibly toward the At-Large community. For the unititiated, the Community Objection Grounds are stated as follows (while not including the lentgthy details of the "tests" of: Community, Substantial Opposition, Targeting, Detriment for sake of space and time): * The community invoked by the objector is a clearly delineated community; and * Community opposition to the application is substantial; and * There is a strong association between the community invoked and the applied-for gTLD string; and * The application creates a likelihood of material detriment to the rights or legitimate interests of a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted. Therefore, I would urge NARALO to submit objections to each of the 4 TLDs under the 'Community Objection Grounds' based on the inherent responsibility of At-Large to represent the voice of those who do object, based on the terms may have been stated by those objectors. If we are to represent a valid voice as a RALO, we must also recognize that 'meeting the criteria established' does not consider the magnitude of the bylaws of either ICANN itself nor the bylaws of NARALO. Cordially submitted, RJGlass A@L ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Members of the new gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG) considered the comments from the At-Large community as of February 8 2013 regarding the applications for .amazon ( <https://community.icann.org/x/dAFlAg> https://community.icann.org/x/dAFlAg), .patagonia ( <https://community.icann.org/x/fgFlAg> https://community.icann.org/x/fgFlAg) .health ( <https://community.icann.org/x/0wZlAg> https://community.icann.org/x/0wZlAg) .nyc ( <https://community.icann.org/x/CYJEAg> https://community.icann.org/x/CYJEAg) None of the applications raised any limited public interest concerns ( <https://community.icann.org/x/QAkQAg> https://community.icann.org/x/QAkQAg) gTLD RG members ranked each factor of the four tests for community objection grounds (( <https://community.icann.org/x/QgkQAg> https://community.icann.org/x/QgkQAg) based on the comments and discussions. Based on these rankings, the following are the decisions by the gTLD RG: Re: .amazon ( <https://community.icann.org/x/dAFlAg> https://community.icann.org/x/dAFlAg): There will be no drafting of an objection statement on community grounds for the application for .amazon given that the "detriment" test for community objection grounds was not passed. Re: .patagonia ( <https://community.icann.org/x/fgFlAg> https://community.icann.org/x/fgFlAg) There will be no drafting of an objection statement on community grounds for the application for .patagonia given that the "targeting" and "detriment" tests for community objection grounds were not passed. Re: .health ( <https://community.icann.org/x/0wZlAg> https://community.icann.org/x/0wZlAg) Objection statements on community grounds will be drafted for the applications for .health given that the four tests for community objection grounds were passed. The gTLD RG will attempt to put together the objection statements to the applications for .health in time for RALO review around 22 February 2013. Re: .nyc There will be no drafting of an objection statement on community grounds for the application for .nyc given the comments received as on February 8 2013 indicated that the initial objection concerns raised were being addressed. A late comment sent to the gTLD RG on 11 February 2013 was treated by the gTLD RG as being submitted too late for consideration. Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh gTLD RG chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- From: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org> To: "afri-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <afri-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "apac-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <apac-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: "New gTLD Review Group (newgtldrg@atlarge-lists.icann.org)" <newgtldrg@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org>; "gtld-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <gtld-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:06 PM Subject: [NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: At-Large Objection Statements posted for RALO review - deadline for RALO advice to ALAC is March 5 2013 Dear All, Please see an important message being sent on behalf of Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Chair of the At-Large new gTLD Review Group: ** Dear All, As per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new gTLD application, (see one page PDF at http://bit.ly/how-ALAC-files-objection-to-new-gTLD ), the new gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG) have posted objection statements on community grounds to 5 new gTLD applications for Regional At-Large Organisation (RALO) review and advice to the ALAC. The gTLD RG drafted the statements based on the outcomes of its review and discussion of comments received by February 8, 2013 (see http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/2013q1/009493.html) All of the objection statements are on community objection grounds. The community objection grounds page at https://community.icann.org/x/QgkQAg lists four tests that would enable the Dispute Resolution Service Provider hearing the objection to determine whether there is substantial opposition from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be targeted. Note also that ALL four tests must be met for the objection to prevail. The 5 applications and objection statements, including the comments received by the gTLD RG on the applications can be found on the workspace at https://community.icann.org/x/soxwAg with 5 separate wiki pages for each new gTLD application, the objection statement and the comments received by the gTLD RG. Members of At-Large are invited to discuss and post questions or comments on these wiki pages. All RALOs must review EACH of the 5 gTLD applications and the associated information (objection statement, comments) on the wiki pages and decide if the objection statement drafted by the gTLD RG group supports the criterion for community objection. The RALO cannot modify any of the 5 objection statements, but must advise the ALAC as to whether the RALO EITHER: 1) supports the objection statement being filed by the ALAC against the new gTLD application OR 2) NOT support the objection statement being filed by the ALAC against the new gTLD application. This advice for each of the 5 objection statements must be sent to the ALAC by March 5, 2013, 23:59 UTC so that the ALAC can review the RALO advice before the end of the objection period on March 13, 2013. A conference call is tentatively scheduled on Thursday, February 28, 2013 (exact time will be confirmed by At-Large Staff) is being planned for RALO officers with the gTLD RG members to provide an overview of the process and to answer any questions they may have as to what is expected by the RALOs as per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new gTLD application. At-Large members are welcome to attend this call. Kind regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh ** Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of the ALAC E-mail: staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
On 2/26/13 11:06 AM, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote:
Dear All,
Please see an important message being sent on behalf of Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Chair of the At-Large new gTLD Review Group:
I offered objections to each of: .amazon .patagonia .health .nyc I sent these directly to Dev, and I resent them to the NA-Discuss list, to which Dev has posted in the past, and is, or was, a subscriber, and so might have a second opportunity to notice a response to his solicitation for comment. I also tried to find a means to add my comments to the wiki, but lacked write permission on the wiki. I pointed this out to Dev in mail as well. I've the impression that Dev's original mail was pro-forma, that no response was actually anticipated, or recognized -- at least, I can see no effect in having bothered to respond to Dev, directly, via the list, or attempting to engage directly in the wiki to record a comment. I concur with the observations of RJGlass that there is something wrong with the current process. I also point out that the preemptive discard of objections _from_ the North American Region to applications _from_ the North American Region to expropriate significant regional identifiers originating _in_ any other region, South America in the instant cast, is _peculiar_. If the North American regional at-large entity can't object to the rapacious acts of North American for-profit corporate actors, that leaves only unpaid collaboration in theft, through "silence" and/or actual objection suppression, which appears to be the instant case. Eric Brunner-Williams
participants (5)
-
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Evan Leibovitch -
Garth Bruen -
ICANN At-Large Staff -
RJ Glass