Re: [GAC] [soac-mapo] RE: Note of GAC position on paying for objections
- To: soac-mapo <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [GAC] [soac-mapo] RE: Note of GAC position on paying for objections
- From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 11:27:35 -0700
Some comments on the questions:
VIA THE IO? I think Advisory Group objections should go straight to the
DRSP. I don't know what role the IO would play as an intermediary. He/she
presumably couldn't reject the objection. The only role I can see would be to
recommend changes - but I think this is outside the scope of the IO. (note:
I make these comments separate to Robin's proposal that IO be eliminated).
HOW TO FORMULATE? Do the GAC/ ALAC have secretariats that could formulate an
objection on their behalf? I think the following two forms of
recommendation have essentially the same impact: (1) the IO must submit an
objection if requested by an ICANN Advisory Group, or (2) any Advisory Group
objection is not subject to a fee. The former approach solves the 'how to
formulate' question. It may also solve Robin's concern that the IO would be
superfluous if the GAC/ ALAC could submit objections without fee.
HOW IS EACH DRSP CHOSEN? This is my understanding of DAG4 rules. The
International Center of Expertise of the International Chamber of Commerce
(ICC) is the DRSP for all Objections Based on the Principles of Ordre Public
(Recommendation 6) and 'Community Objections'. For each actual objection the
Center will appoint an expert panel. For 'Ordre Public' objections they will
appoint 3 panelists and for Community objections they will appoint 1. These
panelists must be unaffiliated with the parties to the dispute, and procedures
for challenging them are in DRSP rules. I think this means the Center has
the ability to chose the same experts every time (as long as they remained
unaffiliated with disputing parties). Alternately they could appoint new
panelists every time, or something in between. They probably have some
expertise at the right mix for that.
I think this framework for DRSPs/ panels is sensible and I'm not recommending
changes to it (although I know Konstantinos recommends a different DRSP for
Ordre Public objections).
AMALGAMATE ORDRE PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY? I understand your point here. There
are similarities between the two. However, they also have many differences.
I think because they're different in more ways than they're similar its good to
keep them separate in the DAG.
On Sep 9, 2010, at 1:03 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle 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".
> 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 ?
> 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.
> On Sep 8, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> 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.
>> 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
>> 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
> 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
> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")