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

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

Thanks Richard.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Richard Tindal
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 9:54 PM
To: soac-mapo
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Community Objection -- a draft recommendation

 

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).