Re: [GAC] [soac-mapo] RE: fees

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Chuck,

I support the first recommendation.   For clarity we should use the word 
'objection' instead of 'dispute'  and we should be explicit that it's only for 
Rec 6 objections.  Perhaps these words:   

"ICANN Advisory Groups should be able to file an objection based on Rec 6 
without paying a fee and any responses to such objection would also be allowed 
without fees." 

I'm not a fan of the CIST idea.   On the surface it sounds sensible, but,  I 
think it would be of unwieldy size (almost everyone will want to be on it) and 
I think the staff are well able to consult people/ groups when they need 
implementation advice.   I'd rather we spend the remaining few days getting our 
recommendations as clear and numerous as possible.

Thanks

RT




On Sep 9, 2010, at 6:21 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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