Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
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@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org Discuss" < na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@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+sc...), 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@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+Dra... [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_applications...
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
Olivier, Thanks for your answer and for your temperate responses. I'm a little disturbed that you consider my responses "biased." In answer to your question, no, I don't think my point of view is biased, at least no more than anyone else's. It represents my best understanding of how I think ICANN can best advance the interests of the Internet. I've made no secret of my support for the new gTLD program, but I will say that I have been entirely consistent for over 10 years on this point, long before I had any possibility of a financial interest in the matter. I had seriously hoped that we could talk about these issues based on their merits, rather than jumping immediately to an ad-hominem style of argument. I believe I made serious points in my post, and I think they should be answered on their merits. I confess that I grow weary of the casual discrimination and off-hand dismissal of business people, the ready willingness to drop terms like "insiders" and "bias" without any facts to back it up, especially when it's readily apparent to me that there is virtually no-one outside of the technical portion of our community who are not following their own agendas (and perhaps they are too). Be that as it may, I am not trying to pass as a "simple user." I am well aware that I have rather too much experience at ICANN, but I don't see anywhere in the ALAC requirements that I must be "simple" to make a contribution -- is there a rule that mandates that ALAC participants to be ignorant and inexperienced? Certainly that cannot be said about you, or about Mr. Liebovitch - you are both very knowledgable and experienced. One of the serious points is about how ALAC's own transparency and accountability are managed, a point which I have made to you in private. If the ALAC leadership is going to make a big point of transparency at ICANN (which they do, and which I applaud), it would be well if ALAC set the standards -- noblesse oblige, and all that.... For instance, I notice that there is no notice of the paper under discussion on the NARALO web site (https://st.icann.org/naralo/) or the ALAC website (https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/11502194/ALAC+Chair%27s+Rep...) where many other meetings and papers are mentioned, nor is there any mention of it in your report of ICANN SF (https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/11502194/ALAC+Chair%27s+Rep...). Nor it is mentioned in the otherwise quite thorough "Policy Advice Schedule (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tKrlhCospxnfewY_9R39SuQ&gid=4) on the ALAC web site. In other words, someone not monitoring the ALAC lists would have no idea that this radical statement, which would have the effect of delaying an effort that the entire community has spent years working on, was about to be unleashed. You say that this is "as close to consensus as we are going to get." I have trouble with this, since the paper itself notes that the ideas in it have not received wide circulation and may change as soon as people read it -- and that was indeed my aim in submitting my contribution. And if it was fully discussed, I find it very curious that unlike discussions in the rest of the ICANN community, where everything ends up on email lists, none of this was much discussed on the NARALO or ALAC lists, which I read and to which I contribute. Perhaps I missed it, but I also found no mention of this paper on any agenda, or report of meetings, and I noticed it only when it was almost fully formed, and a deadline was announced just a few days away. I'm getting that funny feeling that either it was not discussed, or the discussion of it was not disclosed. This is the opposite of how ALAC is supposed to work, is it not? The NARALO website has as its last announcement something from July 2010, and the "Resources for NARALO members" is under construction. It therefore comes as no surprise that this position paper is not mentioned there either. I would be very grateful to find where it is published ANYWHERE on an ALAC web site, or discussed on any list earlier than a week ago. If it isn't, and it hasn't been discussed except for very recently on the email lists, that means that it can only have received any attention at ALAC face-to-face meetings. If so, I cannot understand how it can represent consensus, when so many people are not able to travel around the world to ICANN meetings and there appears to be only the smallest electronic communication concerning it. To me it is richly ironic that ALAC has made numerous representations to ICANN about the necessity of including people and organizations from the developing world, yet depends on face-to-face meetings in far-flung locales to conduct its own business, despite the exorbitant expense and inconvenience of doing so. Finally, how close is the consensus? Full? Partial? Rough? A split? I rather like the NCUC habit of reporting what *kind* of consensus was achieved, not simply declaring whether it exists or not. If you like categories, here is an excellent place to apply them. I am further confused by the assertion that the paper is in line with what ALAC has been saying since Mexico City. I find that very difficult to understand, since the GAC scorecard was just released a few weeks ago, and contains many novel points, including no fees for government objections, inclusion of both sunrise and IP claims instead of one or the other, "early warning systems" and others. How can you have consensus on topics that new? Finally, please note that I submit my contribution *as a participant in NARALO* and the ALAC and from no other ICANN stakeholder group or constituency. I urge you -- actually I insist -- that my contribution be taken not as the observations of an outsider, but as the contribution of a participant within the ALAC structure, which (as I have been told time and time again) is my home in ICANN unless and until I find welcome in another group. As a contributor to the NARALO and ALAC lists for some time, I have been asked to participate in NARALO elections as a North American member. If you make any measure of consensus as being rough or full or what have you -- which I think is a very good idea from the point of view of transparency -- then you should include my contribution as a resounding dissent. I like and respect you personally, and therefore I am quite surprised that you would defend a position paper on a topic of this great importance, with the potential to derail a painstakingly-crafted community consensus, introduced on the public lists only a few days ago, with no polling of the lists, with discussion restricted (apparently) to face-to-face meeting that few people can attend, which contains *in the text of the paper* the disclaimer that it has not been widely circulated or received much comment -- I am greatly surprised that you could characterize this as a consensus position. It has all the hallmarks of being the exact opposite of that. With best regards, Antony On Mar 25, 2011, at 5:39 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
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@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org Discuss" < na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@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+sc...), 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@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+Dra... [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_applications...
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
Hi Antony, Thanks for your input. I've made some changes to the draft document to address issues you raised: - I've clarified the general position of trademark issues so that it reads: *We support the Scorecard's name-protection measures which are consistent with the STI consensus recommendations, subject to the ALAC minority report on the STI * - Support for 6.1.3 (going beyond exact matches for IP claims) did slip through accidentally; that has been fixed. The Statement already indicates that the ALAC opposes going beyond exact matches for the URS (#6.2.13) Thanks especially for the catch on 6.1.3. *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.*
So... Despite what ALAC might want, you assert that "the entire community" has rejected categories. It logically follows that, in your opinion, ALAC is outside "the entire community". That's unfortunate. - Evan PS: If you're going to insist mentioning me by name in all of your emails. you could at least make a minimal attempt to spell my name right.
Evan, I think you are making my point for me. If consensus cannot exist without unanimity, then you're right, the "entire community" cannot have embraced the new gTLD program without the full assent of ALAC. But by that reckoning, the ALAC cannot report consensus on this GAC scorecard paper as long as one person objects -- and I do. The difference is that the new gTLD program has been fully aired, all the stakeholder groups have been polled numerous times not just on the program as a whole, but on every minute detail. The consensus within ICANN is not unanimous, in fact just about every group is unhappy about something, but as a whole -- which is what I meant by "entire community" -- it's clear that there is rough consensus on the new gTLD program as a whole, and on most of the major points. If the ALAC were to truly solicit comment and consider the points of view of its membership -- gather input, if you will -- then hopefully what I consider to be the correct answer would prevail. But if it didn't, if my position was a lonely minority, then I would agree that the GAC scorecard paper had consensus despite my reservations. But that hasn't happened, input has not been gathered. Furthermore, there is something to be said for consistency. As an individual I am reminded when what I say now contradicts something I said in the past, and, as you know, pillorying the ICANN Board for inconsistencies is something of a blood sport at ICANN. I think ALAC owes it to its standing as an institution to examine its current advice against the published advice of the past, and provide a rationale for the change if it differs. It is a fair request; the same thing was asked of the Board when they announced their decision on vertical integration, which diverged massively from their Nairobi resolution. ALAC is on record as supporting new gTLDs. The Board has made its call on where it sees consensus in the new gTLD process, and is also guided by the various experts it consults -- technical, legal, etc. Governments are threatening to dismantle that consensus, making much the same argument that you hinted at before -- without full and unanimous consent of all parties, there is not consensus, and therefore the program should not go forward. The question for GAC and ALAC and any other structure within ICANN, is when does the consensus of the rest of the community weigh more than your dissent? Has something new happened, or are are you refighting old battles? When do you value an historic agreement, despite its flaws, more than the points you are arguing for? Is consensus really the same thing as unanimity? These are important points upon which people can differ. But let's at least have the discussion and see what ALAC really thinks before hurrying something out the door. Antony P.S. Sorry about misspelling your name. Mine is also regularly mangled, so I should be more careful. On Mar 25, 2011, at 7:39 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hi Antony,
Thanks for your input. I've made some changes to the draft document to address issues you raised:
- I've clarified the general position of trademark issues so that it reads: *We support the Scorecard's name-protection measures which are consistent with the STI consensus recommendations, subject to the ALAC minority report on the STI
* - Support for 6.1.3 (going beyond exact matches for IP claims) did slip through accidentally; that has been fixed. The Statement already indicates that the ALAC opposes going beyond exact matches for the URS (#6.2.13)
Thanks especially for the catch on 6.1.3.
*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.*
So... Despite what ALAC might want, you assert that "the entire community" has rejected categories. It logically follows that, in your opinion, ALAC is outside "the entire community". That's unfortunate.
- Evan
PS: If you're going to insist mentioning me by name in all of your emails. you could at least make a minimal attempt to spell my name right. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Dear Anthony, thank you for your kind reply. As per the tradition, I'll intersperse my reply. Le 26/03/2011 02:51, Antony Van Couvering a écrit :
Olivier,
Thanks for your answer and for your temperate responses.
I'm a little disturbed that you consider my responses "biased." In answer to your question, no, I don't think my point of view is biased, at least no more than anyone else's. It represents my best understanding of how I think ICANN can best advance the interests of the Internet. I've made no secret of my support for the new gTLD program, but I will say that I have been entirely consistent for over 10 years on this point, long before I had any possibility of a financial interest in the matter. I had seriously hoped that we could talk about these issues based on their merits, rather than jumping immediately to an ad-hominem style of argument. I believe I made serious points in my post, and I think they should be answered on their merits. I confess that I grow weary of the casual discrimination and off-hand dismissal of business people, the ready willingness to drop terms like "insiders" and "bias" without any facts to back it up, especially when it's readily apparent to me that there is virtually no-one outside of the technical portion of our community who are not following their own agendas (and perhaps they are too). Be that as it may, I am not trying to pass as a "simple user." I am well aware that I have rather too much experience at ICANN, but I don't see anywhere in the ALAC requirements that I must be "simple" to make a contribution -- is there a rule that mandates that ALAC participants to be ignorant and inexperienced? Certainly that cannot be said about you, or about Mr. Liebovitch - you are both very knowledgable and experienced.
I don't discount the fact that you have made serious points in your post and you'll notice that I have taken much time in considering each of them in detail - and am thankful about several items you pointed out. Evan has kindly amended the text accordingly - thanks for your input! Looking back at my response, I don't consider pointing out your potential conflicts of interest as being an ad-hominem style of argument - http://www.mindsandmachines.com/about/ You allege that many ALAC members have a similar conflict of interest. Not so. Most of the ALAC (me included) as well as regional leads have no vested interest whatsoever. They painstakingly take time off work to travel to an ICANN meeting and work for free. The diversity of ALSes they represent is inspiring. The sole benefit they are to derive from the new gTLD process will be user choice and diversity, just like any other Internet user out there. Did you miss the NARALO showcase event? Truly inspiring.
One of the serious points is about how ALAC's own transparency and accountability are managed, a point which I have made to you in private. If the ALAC leadership is going to make a big point of transparency at ICANN (which they do, and which I applaud), it would be well if ALAC set the standards -- noblesse oblige, and all that....
For instance, I notice that there is no notice of the paper under discussion on the NARALO web site (https://st.icann.org/naralo/) or the ALAC website (https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/11502194/ALAC+Chair%27s+Rep...) where many other meetings and papers are mentioned, nor is there any mention of it in your report of ICANN SF (https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/11502194/ALAC+Chair%27s+Rep... San+Francisco+18+March+-+Final.pdf?version=3&modificationDate=1300466413000). Nor it is mentioned in the otherwise quite thorough "Policy Advice Schedule (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tKrlhCospxnfewY_9R39SuQ&gid=4) on the ALAC web site. In other words, someone not monitoring the ALAC lists would have no idea that this radical statement, which would have the effect of delaying an effort that the entire community has spent years working on, was about to be unleashed.
You have to look in the right places - and yes, I admit we still need to do some work on information dissemination, but there is a fine line between this and too much information on the discussion lists. ALAC improvements Work Team B was the Team that worked to improve this: https://community.icann.org/display/Improve/At-Large+Improvements+Work+Team+... I'll include a few starting points for you to consider below.
You say that this is "as close to consensus as we are going to get." I have trouble with this, since the paper itself notes that the ideas in it have not received wide circulation and may change as soon as people read it -- and that was indeed my aim in submitting my contribution. And if it was fully discussed, I find it very curious that unlike discussions in the rest of the ICANN community, where everything ends up on email lists, none of this was much discussed on the NARALO or ALAC lists, which I read and to which I contribute. Perhaps I missed it, but I also found no mention of this paper on any agenda, or report of meetings, and I noticed it only when it was almost fully formed, and a deadline was announced just a few days away.
The ALAC was publicly asked to provide its final opinions by the GAC during the GAC meeting with the ALAC on Sunday. (I can't find the location of its records - you could ask the GAC about this) and by the Board: see transcript on http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22233 Sessions building the ALAC position on DAGv4 + the subsequent Board-GAC discussion abound. First, it's helpful to have a look at the ALAC workspace: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28A... The New gTLDs working group has a mailing list which has been in operation for a long while. The Naming Issues Task Force has also operated with discussions on discussion lists. For a list of working group lists, see: https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo At-Large members were involved in the STI working team, the Rec.6 discussion, JAS, new gTLD, etc. Reporting on the new gTLD process took place at every ICANN meeting: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Meetings+-+Sunday%2C+13... (check the other days too) https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Cartagena+2010+-+Meetin... https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Brussels+Schedule https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Nairobi+Schedule http://sel.icann.org/sel/schedule/co/simple/At-Large http://syd.icann.org/syd/schedule/co/simple/At-Large http://www.atlarge.icann.org/summit/program-en.htm Each of these could be followed remotely in English, Spanish and French. Indeed, we had many remote participants joining us during every meeting. The Brussels Board-GAC discussion were well covered and input was gathered from ALAC: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac-announce/2011q1/000767.html I am sorry to find you have missed the opportunity of contributing at the time. http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/2011q1/007623.html Note - the Adobe Connect + Skype Chats which were in operation on those days. The Skype chat was the only channel for user feedback which we set-up for everyone to use and this was very well appreciated by all, Board and GAC included. Had the ALAC not decided on providing a channel for open discussion, there would have been none. Looking back at the list of 73 participants, I am sorry you missed the chance of taking part. You'll have to pay more attention to your incoming email in the future! :-) Also - check the ALAC monthly calls: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+25.01.11+-+Monthly+Teleconf... https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+22.02.11+-+Monthly+Teleconf... and previous calls too: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/2010+ALAC+Meetings There are vast quantities of information out there. Agreed, the information may still be hard to find, but with: 1. the transfer from SocialText to Confluence 2. the fact that we've been short of at least 1 full time staff for several years 3. the amount of time that volunteers had to spend on the At-Large improvements processes - and this is tackling the problem of information flow to our edges 4. the limited bandwidth that our remaining staff has had due to all of the above ...I should be ever so grateful if you could suggest a source of funding for At-Large to be able to launch a short term project to design a knowledge management system (system, not tool = a complete team machines+minds) set-up by a team of full-time employees whose job will be solely to help us with information dissemination. We're also looking for sponsors for the APRALO showcase and your address book would be of great help. We're doing the best that we can, but your assertion that there is no transparency in the current ALAC process is simply unfair.
I am further confused by the assertion that the paper is in line with what ALAC has been saying since Mexico City. I find that very difficult to understand, since the GAC scorecard was just released a few weeks ago, and contains many novel points, including no fees for government objections, inclusion of both sunrise and IP claims instead of one or the other, "early warning systems" and others. How can you have consensus on topics that new?
Whilst some of these are new indeed, some ideas developed by the GAC are actually positions that the ALAC has championed for a long time, not the other way round.
Finally, please note that I submit my contribution *as a participant in NARALO* and the ALAC and from no other ICANN stakeholder group or constituency. I urge you -- actually I insist -- that my contribution be taken not as the observations of an outsider, but as the contribution of a participant within the ALAC structure, which (as I have been told time and time again) is my home in ICANN unless and until I find welcome in another group. As a contributor to the NARALO and ALAC lists for some time, I have been asked to participate in NARALO elections as a North American member. If you make any measure of consensus as being rough or full or what have you -- which I think is a very good idea from the point of view of transparency -- then you should include my contribution as a resounding dissent.
I like and respect you personally, and therefore I am quite surprised that you would defend a position paper on a topic of this great importance, with the potential to derail a painstakingly-crafted community consensus, introduced on the public lists only a few days ago, with no polling of the lists, with discussion restricted (apparently) to face-to-face meeting that few people can attend, which contains *in the text of the paper* the disclaimer that it has not been widely circulated or received much comment -- I am greatly surprised that you could characterize this as a consensus position. It has all the hallmarks of being the exact opposite of that.
If you think that the ALAC statement has the potential to "derail a painstakingly-crafted community consensus", I am both surprised you don't see At-Large as being one of the communities involved and surprised at the potential you place on the ALAC to "derail" a process. That was never our intention and I don't think we've ever been accused of such a thing. Your contribution has been noted, thanks - although I feel that your questions about the process itself are ill-founded. The question of "full consensus, rough consensus or else" doesn't stand when the disclaimer which you don't like, is included in the text: *"It must be emphasised that, because of the extremely compressed timeline allowed for this response, The 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.* If the language below is seen as too sharp, the reader is asked to accept our apologies -- but also to understand that we have had both little time and few words with which to express our concerns." ALAC members have felt it was a safe way to explain our position. The community page was created 7 days ago. What's written on it reflects way more than 7 day's discussions and I hope that I have shown that in my message - and look forward to your continued involvement in At-Large. Warmest regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Hi Olivier, With respect to Operational Readiness (item 19. in report) ICANN plans to accept and review applications in batches and enter strings into the root over a 9 to 18 month period. Resources have been planned and will be allocated based on a batch size not exceeding 500 applications. The draft ALAC report recommends "a more staggered approach, with a steady timetable of approvals and delegations." If I understand it correctly this recommendation is not made for technical reasons -- but rather comes from concerns about ICANN's processing ability, and concerns that consumers might be confused by too many TLDs. I disagree with the rationale for this recommendation as I think ICANN's planning documents show adequate preparation for 500 applications. Also, I don't think diverse choice will confuse most consumers. I think the primary basis for the Internet's success has been its rapid growth in many directions. Also, I am very concerned that this recommendation cannot be implemented in a fair way. In various 'Summary and Analysis of Public Comments' ICANN staff have pointed out that limiting a round may put ICANN in the position of choosing winners and losers (which they are not qualified to do) and that any limitation method will tend to favor better resourced and/ or politically connected applicants. At this late stage of AG finalization I think any ALAC recommendation to limit the first round needs to come with practical suggestions for how this could be done. The staff have said that limiting is not implementable in a fair way. If the ALAC believes it can be done fairly I think these ideas need to be put in the report. Specifically, has the ALAC discussed the right size (in terms of number of apps) for this first round? What sort of limit do you have in mind and what is the basis for that number? Assuming there are more potential applicants than the number chosen, how will ICANN decide which applicants proceed and which do not? This last question is crucial. If the ALAC report does not provide guidance to staff/Board on how to chose the winners, the report will simply re-ask them to do something they have already said is unimplementable. Regards Richard On Mar 25, 2011, at 5:39 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
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@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org Discuss" < na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@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+sc...), 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@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+Dra... [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_applications...
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
------ 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 ------
Recently, the policy positions held by the Registry Stakeholders Group (RySG), and the Registrar Stakeholders Group (RrSg), have been advocated in the At Large Advisory Group's North American Regional mailing list. These views are not without merit, within some specific frameworks or analytic contexts, e.g., the expression of ICANN Board Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush that domainers are a public, and therefore their interests are a public interest [1]. However, these views are effectively advocated elsewhere, and their advocacy in the NARALO list, with the purpose of including these views in the NARALO/ALAC position statement on the GAC Scorecard complicates the presentation of a view not otherwise advocated. Note also that the RySG allows an affiliate membership, which one or more parties anticipating registry operations as contracted parties is known to hold, and that absent a VI restriction, any party intending registry operations, whether as a party to a registry agreement, or as a service provider to others party to a registry agreement, may acquire an interest in an ICANN Accredited Registrar, both at very, very modest costs. Eric [1] Made at the Nairobi meeting in response to an intervention by the author that "public interest" was a subject which had been addressed by such well-known and articulate advocates as Bertrand de la Chapelle and Jeff Neuman, Esq., without agreement as to the basic meaning.
Hi Richard, On 26 March 2011 13:49, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@me.com> wrote: If the ALAC report does not provide guidance to staff/Board on how to chose
the winners, the report will simply re-ask them to do something they have already said is unimplementable.
There are quite a few instances in the ALAC statement that require staff to do something they insist can't be done. Categories, differential pricing and eliminating the DRSP, amongst others. Perhaps the answer is different staff that is not quite so limited. 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. - Evan
I think you already explored whether there's interest in principle when you made this recommendation last time. The response then was - How would you implement this? I don't think its fair to criticize the staff for failing to come up with implementation solutions if we don't have any to offer ourselves. Has ALAC given thought to how this would be implemented? If not, I think now's the time to do so. Richard On Mar 26, 2011, at 11:13 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hi Richard,
On 26 March 2011 13:49, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@me.com> wrote:
If the ALAC report does not provide guidance to staff/Board on how to chose the winners, the report will simply re-ask them to do something they have already said is unimplementable.
There are quite a few instances in the ALAC statement that require staff to do something they insist can't be done. Categories, differential pricing and eliminating the DRSP, amongst others.
Perhaps the answer is different staff that is not quite so limited.
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.
- Evan
On 26 March 2011 15:02, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@me.com> wrote:
I think you already explored whether there's interest in principle when you made this recommendation last time. The response then was - How would you implement this?
Then you have nothing to be concerned about. - Evan
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.
participants (6)
-
Antony Van Couvering -
Avri Doria -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Evan Leibovitch -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Richard Tindal