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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It seems to me that there is quite a bit of support for a recommendation like 
the following:  "ICANN Advisory Groups should be able to file a dispute without 
paying a fee and any responses to such disputes would also be allowed without 
fees."  Does anyone object to such a recommendation?  Please feel free to 
suggest edits.

Margie - Please capture this as a possible recommendation for the report.

I appreciate the excellent discussion on issues like this one including the 
debate on implementation details but I want to communicate a caution.  I do not 
believe we have time to reach consensus or even rough consensus on very many 
details for our report.  So my recommendation is that we consider a 
recommendation something like this: "The Rec6 CWG recommends that the ICANN New 
gTLD Implementation Team form a Recommendation 6 Community Implementation 
Support Team (Rec6 CIST) to provide input to ICANN Implementation Staff as they 
further refine implementation details for Recommendation 6."  I would hope then 
that some members of the Rec6 CWG would volunteer to be a part of the Rec6 CIST 
and share the detailed ideas that have been discussed.  This type of approach 
was used in the past by the GNSO to assist in the implementation of recommended 
policies.

Please let me know what you think of this approach.

Margie - Please list this as a possible recommendation for the report, 
understanding at this point in time that it does not yet have any support.

Liz - Considering Margie's heavy load, would it make sense to assign another 
Staff member to keep track of pending recommendations and group statements?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch
> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 8:24 AM
> To: Bertrand de La Chapelle
> Cc: Richard Tindal; soac-mapo
> Subject: Re: [GAC] [soac-mapo] RE: Note of GAC position on paying for
> objections
> 
> 
> 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