Re: [gnso-contro-wg] Thread 2: Disputes by governments and consensus

[Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello everyone

Thanks for raising these questions -- they are very important to the  
dispute resolution part of the application process.

Three things that the group may wish to consider.

1.  What is the nature of objection -- should there be a "basket" of  
objections that have a "measure".  For example, contravenes  
Recommendation xyz or Principle abc
2.  Who can object to what?
3.  How can an objection be handled?

I have attached a DRAFT chart which the group may find useful.  It  
sets out a straw man proposal but, having read the thread below, it's  
not comprehensive in its analysis of public comment periods and the  
impact they may have on the application process.

The group may also wish to think about the impact of objection on the  
cost of the process and the time it would take to evaluate applications.

I would also urge the group to think about defining a controversial  
name -- is that a useful exercise given that controversy can be about  
anything at any time and that, in this context, a string could be  
controversial in one round and not in another.  Finally, should the  
"objection" model be complaint driven only with the objector having  
to pay for and justify their objection?

Kind regards and feedback most appreciated.

Liz


.....................................................

Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
+32 2 234 7874 tel
+32 2 234 7848 fax
+32 497 07 4243 mob

Attachment: ObjectionResolution23Apr07.doc
Description: Binary data

On 23 Apr 2007, at 06:45, Avri Doria wrote:

> > 1. Propose creating a category called Controversial
> > Names for use at the top level only. A label that
> > is applied for would be considered Controversial
> > if during the Public Comment phase of the new
> > gTLD application process the label becomes
> > disputed by a formal notice of a consensus
> > position from an ICANN Advisory Committee or
> > ICANN Supporting Organization, and otherwise
> > meets the definition of Controversial Names as
> > defined above.
>
>
> 2. How is a non consensus issue that is brought up by an AC, e.g.  
> the GAC, to be handled?  this relates to the GAc principles on new  
> gTLDs, specifically:
>
> > 3.3 If individual GAC members or other governments express formal  
> > concerns about any issues related to the new gTLDs, the ICANN  
> > board should fully consider those concerns and clearly explain how  
> > it will address them
>
> Is it sufficient for such disputes to be handled only at the ICANN  
> board level or should the dispute process be open to individual  
> governments?  Is is appropriate for the GSNOS policy to determine  
> that a GAC decsion needs to be by consensus?