Re: [soac-mapo] Community Objection -- a draft recommendation

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Oops.  Yes, Advisory Committees.

To respond to your last question.  Currently, there is a fairly high threshold 
to achieve a successful Community objection.  I'm suggesting that we look into 
a slight lowering of this
threshold for Objections from ACs.   For example, the current detriment 
standard is --  'There is a likelihood of detriment to the community named by 
the objector if the gTLD application is approved'.    
For AC Objections this could be lowered to 'possibility of detriment' (just an 
example).    This would obviously give some more weight to AC objections,  
versus those from other Objectors.     The rationale 
would simply be that ACs have a slightly stronger voice in the process -- for 
communities they represent.

RT

  


On Sep 9, 2010, at 5:39 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Richard,
>  
> Without commenting on most of your comments, I would like to respond to the 
> last paragraph below, i.e., “The CWG recommends that the fees for such 
> objections by Advisory Groups be lowered or removed.  The CWG also recommends 
> that staff explore ways to reasonably lower the required standard for a 
> successful Advisory Group objection in the areas of standing (3.1.2.4), level 
> of community opposition (3.4.4) or likelihood of detriment (3.4.4). ”
> ·        When we refer to ICANN Advisory Committees, I suggest that we call 
> them that instead of ‘Advisory Group’ to avoid any possible confusion with 
> Advisory Groups in other contexts.
> ·        Why are you suggesting consideration of lowering “the required 
> standard for a successful Advisory Group objection in the areas of standing 
> (3.1.2.4), level of community opposition (3.4.4) or likelihood of detriment 
> (3.4.4)”?  I think some clarification here would be helpful.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
> Of Richard Tindal
> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 8:05 PM
> To: soac-mapo
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Community Objection -- a draft recommendation
>  
> To add some colour to this.  It contains three things
>  
> 1.   an explanation of the existing Community Objection and how it can be 
> used by ACs and others
>  
> 2.   a recommendation that fees be reduced or removed for Community 
> Objections submitted by ACs 
>  
> 3.   a recommendation that staff look into three areas where the required 
> standard for a successful objection might be lowered, if the objection is 
> filed by an AC
>  
> RT
>  
>  
>  
> On Sep 9, 2010, at 4:52 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> Per the discussion on yesterday's call,  here is a draft recommendation 
> related to Community Objection
>  
> RT
>  
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>  
> In addition to, or instead of, an 'Objection Based on General Principles of 
> International Law'  (note:  or whatever title we end up with) ICANN Advisory 
> Groups or their individual members have the possibility to use the 'Community 
> Objection' procedure. A "Community Objection" can be filed if there is 
> substantial opposition to the gTLD application from a significant portion of 
> the community to which the gTLD string may be explicitly or implicitly 
> targeted.  Procedures for such objection are detailed throughout Module 3 of 
> the Applicant Guidebook (but in particular Sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2.4, 3.1.3, 
> 3.3.4 and 3.4.4).    In the current formulation, for such an objection to be 
> successful the objector must prove that:
>  
> The community invoked by the objector is a clearly delineated community; and
> Community opposition to the application is substantial; and
> There is a strong association between the community invoked and the 
> applied-for gTLD string; and
> There is a likelihood of detriment to the community named by the objector if 
> the gTLD application is approved.
>  
> The CWG recommends that the fees for such objections by Advisory Groups be 
> lowered or removed.  The CWG also recommends that staff explore ways to 
> reasonably lower the required standard for a successful Advisory Group 
> objection in the areas of standing (3.1.2.4), level of community opposition 
> (3.4.4) or likelihood of detriment (3.4.4).  
>  
>