Standard for complete defense in Community-based opposition too low.
As we have commented on many occasions, we are concerned about the following language in Module 3: “Defenses to a Community Objection – Satisfaction of the standing requirements for filing a Community Objection (refer to subsection 188.8.131.52) by a community-based applicant is a complete defense to an objection filed on community grounds.” Subsection 184.108.40.206 “standing requirement” is being an “established institutions associated with clearly delineated communities”. Indeed, any community might have a number of such “established institutions”. The danger here is that there is no balancing of representativeness. If a single ·establihed institution” even with marginal support, linkage and representativity applies, it will have a complete defense against all other “established institutions” together. Let me give you two (fake) examples of how this could turn out. These are not real cases, just exaggerated examples to make the point). Let’s imagine that IANA was not a reserved term, and that each piece within the ICANN frameworl has legal existence on its own. Now let’s imagine the TLG applies for .iana. They could, as they are *one* established institution. Now let’s imagine RSSAC, SSAC, GAC, ALAC, ASO; CCNSO; GNSO; NomCom, each GNSO Stakeholders’ Group, the Board of Directors. the Ombudsman and the Scribes all file an oppostion procedure. They would fail. Not because of the merits of the complaint, or lack thereof. Simply because the complete defense insulates *any* established institution against any combination of other established institutions. Do we really believe that such an application should proceed? Let’s imagine now the Arctic Football Federation and the Antartica Football Association (or any combination of your favoirte minuscule federations really existing) apply for .football. Again, all other 190+ national federations, six continental confederations, the FIFA plus all “estalished institutions” for that other sport called football in the USA oppose, because the .football project is only aimed for betting purposes. Again, the opposition would fail because of the “complete defense”. We urge ICANN to qualify the complete efense (which in itself is perfectly reasonable. with a “relative representativeness” requirement, by which, if the complainants are clearly more representative of the intended community, than the applicants, the complete defense should not play nd the complaint should be examined on its merits. Bear in mind that such a “relative representativeness” check is present in the Community priority evaluation, albeit indirectly: in both cases described, the ultra-minority applicants described would easily lose 2-3 points in the “Community support” section. Therefore the incentive is being placed in submitting “defensive community applications” even if the community as a group does not see the need for a TLD, just in case some “rebel” or marginal groups within it would apply. Which is not a good outcome in any sense. Amadeu Abril i Abril CORE Internet Council of Registrars