Re: [GAC] [soac-mapo] RE: Note of GAC position on paying for objections

[Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx>]

I tend to share Richard's angle here. GAC and ALAC are ICANN structures and
it makes sense to use them in the process (this strengthens the internal
coherence of the ICANN system). Their collegial nature would play a role to
filter frivolous objections (Richard's comment regarding the possible abuse
of this waiver) and at the same time could help solve the conundrum between
the "S" word (Frank's perfectly correct remark) and Avri's concern about
"denial of service attack".

There is however two questions : would a GAC and ALAC objection go to the IO
(additional filter) or directly to the DRSP ? and second : how would an
objection be formulated (in practical terms : how will it be drafted) by the
GAC ?

Finally : I think in a previous formulation for objections, it was suggested
to say : "The Board chooses the DRSP". Does that mean that the Board would
have to designate a specific DRSP each time ? I thought the idea was to have
a DRSP designated once and for all (whether it is the ICC or not is a
separate point). On a side note, I find interesting that the DAG presently
proposes that both current MaPo and Community objections be handled by the
same DRSP.

Considering our discussion regarding the applicability of community
objections to handle some individual government concerns, would it be useful
to group the two types of objections under a single heading covering 1)
globally objectionable strings (whatever we call them) and 2) community
objections ?

B.



On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Milton,
>
> The original thread of discussion was about an IO objection triggered by a
> GAC or ALAC request.  I was the one on chat who suggested, instead,  a fee
> waiver for direct objections
> by those parties.
>
> Frank may have a different response to your question,  but my thinking was
> that ALAC and GAC both, in varying ways, represent the interests of
> individual and collective users who may not have the knowledge or resources
> to file objections themselves.
>
> It seems to me this would be useful for ALAC and GAC without being
> prejudicial to the process.  Given the internal processes of both ALAC and
> GAC it seems unlikely to me such a waiver would be abused.
>
> I raised the idea to get others views,  so welcome comments in general.
>
> RT
>
>
>
> On Sep 8, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Frank,
> What is the rationale for the GAC’s position that it shouldn’t have to pay
> an objector’s fee?
> I hope there is something more substantive to it than the idea that “my
> group should get a free ride.”
> How would you require other groups to pay a fee and not a GAC member? I
> don’t get it.
>
> --MM
>
>  *From:* owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Frank March
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 08, 2010 10:47 AM
> *To:* soac-mapo
> *Subject:* [soac-mapo] Note of GAC position on paying for objections
>
> I undertook during the meeting to circulate some text which recognised the
> strongly held position of the GAC that no country should be required to pay
> the objector's fee.  Subsequently the discussion moved on to looking at what
> constituted a government for this purpose (I suggested using the GAC
> definition for membership).  Then there was the suggestion from Bertrand
> that GAC membership could be a requirement for a no-fee objection by a
> government.
>
> The discussion moved to the position of both the GAC and ALAC in the
> objections process with the suggestion that either of these can lodge an
> objection on behalf of a member.  Since the GAC requires consensus this
> would necessarily overcome any concerns about 'frivolous' objections coming
> from this source.  I suggest including a recommendation along this line in
> our draft report.
>
> ----
> Frank March
> Senior Specialist Advisor
> Digital Development
> Energy and Communications Branch, Ministry of Economic Development
> 33 Bowen Street, PO Box 1473, WELLINGTON
> Mobile: (+64) 021 494165
>
>
> newzealand.govt.nz - connecting you to New Zealand central & local
> government services
> ------------------------------
> Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the
> Ministry of Economic Development. This message and any files transmitted
> with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient.
> If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery
> to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in
> error and that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender and
> delete the message and any attachment from your computer.
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gac mailing list
> gac@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac
>
>


-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign
and European Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")