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

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Margie, Liz, ChuckSorry 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