Re: [GAC] [soac-mapo] RE: fees
A recommendation such as the one proposed below addresses the concerns raised that led to the creation of an "independent objector" -- such that one is not additionally needed. If we are giving a new (free) objection right to both GAC and to At-Large, we don't also need to create a 3rd body ("independent objector") to launch objections, given how ripe for abuse such an "independent" objector would be. GAC and At-Large are accountable to their members, that is an advantage over an "independent" objector who is accountable to no one. Thanks, Robin On Sep 9, 2010, at 10:01 AM, Richard Tindal wrote: 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] OnBehalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 8:24 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: Richard Tindal; soac-mapoSubject: Re: [GAC] [soac-mapo] RE: Note of GAC position on paying forobjections 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 ICANNstructures andit makes sense to use them in the process (this strengthens theinternalcoherence of the ICANN system). Their collegial nature would play arole tofilter frivolous objections (Richard's comment regarding the possibleabuseof this waiver) and at the same time could help solve the conundrumbetweenthe "S" word (Frank's perfectly correct remark) and Avri's concernabout"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 tothe IO(additional filter) or directly to the DRSP ? and second : how wouldanobjection be formulated (in practical terms : how will it be drafted)by theGAC ?Arguably, a slighly redefined IO could be *the* source of "the First Look". One could assume that any objection that has gone through theGAC or ALAC consensus process would have been sufficiently vetted forglobal suitability, so it could bypass that step.Finally : I think in a previous formulation for objections, it wassuggestedto say : "The Board chooses the DRSP". Does that mean that the Boardwouldhave to designate a specific DRSP each time ? I thought the idea wasto havea DRSP designated once and for all (whether it is the ICC or not is aseparate point). On a side note, I find interesting that the DAGpresentlyproposes that both current MaPo and Community objections be handledby thesame 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 communityobjections to handle some individual government concerns, would it beusefulto group the two types of objections under a single heading covering1)globally objectionable strings (whatever we call them) and 2)communityobjections ?This is quite reasonable. - Evan IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
|