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

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 9 September 2010 04:03, Bertrand de La Chapelle
<bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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".

I agree. Of course any country (as well as any province, state or
city) could file an objection, but that could go through the same
process as any other community objection.

I would just ask whether the GAC is able to react fast enough to be
able to launch an objection sufficiently early in the application
process of a contentious string.

> 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 ?

Arguably, a slighly redefined IO could be *the* source of "the First
Look". One could assume that any objection that has gone through the
GAC or ALAC consensus process would have been sufficiently vetted for
global suitability, so it could bypass that step.


> 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.

I am hoping that this group will fine-tune the DRSP role so that the
group's members will not necessarily be sourced from the same pool
(ie, the ICC).

> 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 ?

This is quite reasonable.

- Evan