Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

A first thought: are there issues in the latest near final Application guidebook that this groups needs to discuss and possibly comment on?
Avri (11.11.11)

Comments

The main areas of concern that keep coming up are:

- when will there be a 2nd round

- how will ICANN decide which applications get handled when …

Michele Neylon (11.11.11)

--

These issues may be of concern to the domain industry and to organisations thinking of applying for TLDs.

The have absolutely no bearing on the public at large that has no interest in acquiring domains, let alone TLDs.

I would gently remind that this is an *At-Large* Working Group intended to monitor the evolving process from the point of view of the end-user. Other constituencies are welcome to form their own and I can even envision partnerships to be useful. But the specific WG has a fairly focused perspective.

I can see many concerns going forward about fraudulent domain use, park pages on even more domains that should have content, shoddy WHOIS enforcement, user confusion, arbitrary domain takedowns and objectionable names.

But I don't see ANY -- not ONE BIT -- of concern in the end-user community that there won't be a second round. I can't even find a resounding consensus -- again, from the end-user PoV -- for a first one.

NB: The last official ALAC statement made on the Applicant Guidebook called the proposed gTLD process "unacceptable". That position is still on the record and has not been recanted or revised. The objections put forward in that statement are yet to be addressed and some may never be. In effect, we're (still) participating under protest.

- Evan Leibovitch (11.11.11)

--

Sorry - yes - I keep forgetting this is an ALAC WG :)

regards

Michele (11.11.11)

--

Hello Evan,

On 11/11/2011 20:05, Evan Leibovitch wrote :

> But I don't see ANY -- not ONE BIT -- of concern in the end-user

> community that there won't be a second round. I can't even find a

> resounding consensus -- again, from the end-user PoV -- for a first one.

Actually Evan, don't be that 100% sure about this. Some ALSes might indeed be interested in proposing community gTLDs and they do have a concern whether this round is going to be the only round or whether there will be future rounds and when. Any end user is a potential applicant. That's the diversity of our community and IMHO it's a strength.

What's important is that we don't polarize ourselves. Yes, there was no consensus for a first round. This meant that some of us support a first round and some of us don't. "No consensus for a first round" does NOT equate to "Consensus for no first round".

Kind regards,

Olivier Crépin-Leblond (12.11.11)

--

oops, I forgot to comment on the following part too:

On 11/11/2011 20:05, Evan Leibovitch wrote :

> NB: The last official ALAC statement made on the Applicant Guidebook

> called the proposed gTLD process "unacceptable". That position is

> still on the record and has not been recanted or revised. The

> objections put forward in that statement are yet to be addressed and

> some may never be. In effect, we're (still) participating under protest.

Yes, that is correct. The process was "unacceptable".

It does not mean that the ALAC reached consensus against the concept of introducing new gTLDs.

I am putting this on record because there appears to be a new wave of anti-new gTLD dissent out there (ie. outside of ICANN), and in my view we should not be drawn in what is turning out to be a religious argument which will yield no winners.

Kind regards,

Olivier Crépin-Leblond (12.11.11)

--

Hi,

(added more specific subject designation)

This conversation gives me the impression that one activity that might fit within this group's charter is to review the updated AGB to see if it has been improved in any of the areas that are of concern to ALAC/At-Large.

That is, might be worth putting out an ALAC scorecard on that subject and after ALAC review process sending it to the Board.

Does this seem like a worthwhile idea?

If so, a process step might be to find a few volunteers to put together a draft version of such a score card.

It seems something that would have to happen in double time, if it is going to be seen in time.

Avri (12.11.11)

--

Good evening:

Evidently, we are not in the presence of significant demand for TLDs from communities.

Obviously, the exorbitant application fees  - which are clearly designed to get the, increasingly reluctant, branded interests to pay up - are a massive obstacle to communities.

So, let's call it a day. Closure. Not interested. Wait for the next round, when a more proportionate attitude will have to prevail.

Regards

CW Mail (12.11.11)

PS:   My earlier submissions on these matters are on the record.

--

Good point, Avri.

Here is my own take on this that could be used as a starting point.

The problems ALAC has identified with the DAG(1) were

   1. Fees: The $185,000 cost (and the many other indirect costs) was a

   barrier to entry for many deserving potential TLDs.

   *Status: PENDING The Board has yet to implement the JAS report, and it

   is possible that some of its core cost-related recommendations will be

   rejected.

   *

   2. More categories were needed than "community" and "other". By pooling

   together controversial and non-controversial applications, IDNs, geoTLDs

   and everything else into a single pool ICANN, was making the process

   needlessly complex and expensive for many applicants.

   *Status: REJECTED (although implementation of the JAS report may imply a

   new sub-category of "needy")

   *

   3. The trademark protections of earlier DAG versions were too broad and

   sweeping, and gave too little protection against "bully" practises

   Status:* PARTIALLY ACCEPTED*. The negotiations between the GAC and the

   ALAC Board changed some things for the better, but some excesses remain

   4. TLD objections on Morality and Public Order.

   "We emphatically call for the complete abolition of the class of

   objections based on morality and public order. We assert that ICANN has no

   business being in (or delegating) the role of  comparing relative morality

   and conflicting human rights.

   *Status: WORSENED Despite many person-weeks of volunteer time spent in

   the "Rec 6"  joint working group, a sweeping objection provision given to

   the GAC essentially allows objections to be made without publicly disclosed

   justification or appeal.

   *

   5. ALAC was (vehemently and unanimously) against the use of third-party

   Dispute Resolution Service Providers, as a sub-contracted arbiter of

   comparative subjective qualities of applicants

   Status: *REJECTED*. DRSPs are very much still embedded in the current

   process

   6. ALAC believed that the concept of "Independent Objector" was

   redundant with ALAC's own function, and that ALAC was able to serve the

   public interest.

   *Status: ACCEPTED. In giving At-Large the ability to launch objections

   similar to the GAC, this request has been largely satisfied.*

So, if keeping score,  that's:

ACCEPTED - 1

PARTIALLY ACCEPTED - 1

PENDING - 1

REJECTED - 2

WORSENED - 1

This is my (obviously biased) analysis of the outcomes; Contrary opinions are actively solicited.

Whether this scorecard merits specific new comment to the Board is IMO debatable. The Board knows what we told it, and it knows how it acted. Is there value in reminding the Board what it already knows, well beyond the time window when change was possible?

- Evan Leibovitch (12.11.11)

--