[soac-mapo] RE: Reserved Names Working Group Final Report [May 07] as resource/reference document

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

Good idea Marilyn.

 

Chuck

 

From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 6:03 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; soac-mapo
Subject: Reserved Names Working Group Final Report [May 07] as
resource/reference document

 

Margie, Liz, Chuck

Sorry to be late in thinking of this, but I think that the work that the
RN WG did on controversial names might be relevant as a resource
document, and because it was a significant amount of work over a long
period where we did consider some of these issues. I'd suggest that the
staff post it to the list for consideration. I did participate actively
in the RN WG, but more on some of the other sub groups, but I recall its
work as very related. If it is not a present background document, it
should be. 

 

Marilyn 




________________________________

Subject: RE: [GAC] [soac-mapo] RE: fees
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 15:49:14 -0400
From: cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To: richardtindal@xxxxxx; soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx

Good changes Richard.  Thanks.

 

You may be right on the CIST idea.  I was just trying to think of a way
to deal with a lot of the detail that has been discussed.  I am sure
that we will not have time to determine levels of support for all the
details suggested.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Richard Tindal
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 1:01 PM
To: soac-mapo
Subject: Re: [GAC] [soac-mapo] RE: fees

 

 

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