Looks fine.

--c.a.

On 12/10/2010 03:30 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> Thanks, guys!   I've re-worked slightly to accommodate Mary's concerns.  I had to leave in only 2 references to staff because it is important to know where the particular piece of info is coming from (I've been asked by Board members in person where these explanations came from and so they need to know.)
>
> Thanks!
>
> Robin
>
>
> Draft Statement of NCUC on the Draft Applicant Guidebook
>
> NCUC supports the prompt introduction of new gTLDs, however we are deeply concerned about a number of implementation proposals in the latest Draft Applicant Guidebook, yet believe they can be fixed and the new TLD process can move forward.
>
> In particular, we are concerned that the Independent Objector (IO) process is ripe for abuse and harmful to the public interest. The IO was a staff created policy that was never discussed let alone approved by the GNSO.  We believe that it is entirely illogical that there can be a TLD that no community, religion, government, company, trademark holder, or individual in the world actually objects to – yet is “something we all agree is objectionable” as claimed by staff.
>
> Important safeguards to prevent abuse and “gaming” are lacking from the current IO design.  For example, there is no requirement that an objection brought by the IO be tied to at least one specific party who claims it will be harmed if the TLD goes forward.  Such a requirement is necessary to achieve accountability in the new TLD process.
>
> Another feature missing from the IO is transparency.  ICANN staff has explained a number of times that the IO is intended to provide a secret means for governments and others to object to a TLD string without having to do so publicly.  For a public governance organization with transparency requirements, such a proposal for secret objections cannot stand.  If there must be an IO, actual objectors must come forward and be transparent about their role to prevent the new TLD.
>
> According the explanatory memo on so-called Morality and Public Order objections, one of the purposes of the IO is “risk mitigation” to ICANN (i.e. a forum to quietly kill controversial TLDs to ward-off ICANN’s ability to be sued in courts of law).  We do not support staff’s introduction of “risk mitigation strategy” as ICANN’s primary policy objective.  As always, the global public interest with respect to the DNS is ICANN’s primary obligation, not ICANN’s own corporate interest.
>
> The IO lacks true independence.  The IO is employed by ICANN; likewise the third party contracted to select the experts who will determine the objection is also hired by ICANN, so there is a lack of neutrality on the part of the expert panel since it will have an incentive to agree with the IO (ICANN) who hired it when it handles matters brought by the IO.
>
> On the issue of trademarks in the latest DAG, we are troubled by the elimination of sufficient time in which to respond to URS complaints in the latest DAG.  Re-working the negotiated community consensus from 21 to 14 days as a timeframe in which to respond is concerning as it provides inadequate protection to registrants, who may be on holidays and unable to find an attorney and respond in a reasonable period of time.
>
> We share the concerns expressed in the At-Large Statement on Draft Applicant Guidebook.  However, we believe the best course of action is to make the appropriate fixes to the policy to protect the global public interest and go forward with new TLDs in an expeditious manner.
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>