[soac-mapo] Re: Standing of Government to Object

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Further to my note (below) on Section 14 (Community Objections).   

If we accept the approach I described for Section 14 I think it makes the 
current Section 13 (Standing of Governments to File Objections) redundant.

If we accept my Section 14 approach I recommend we delete Section 13 entirely

RT


On Sep 17, 2010, at 6:30 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:

> All,
> 
> The table at the end of this email contains what I believe are the current 
> recommendations regarding Community Objection (used as a supplementary or 
> alternate vehicle for Rec 6 Objections).  
> 
> On the call today we discussed the need to clarify and simplify these.  I 
> propose we do the following:
> 
> a.     Delete the current 14.1 --   As 'clarified' is an imprecise term and 
> the concept of fee reduction is separately addressed
> 
> b.     Break the first 14.2 (there are two of them) into two separate 
> recommendations.  The first (the new 14.1) will contain the first two 
> sentences 
> however the phrase 'as currently specified in AGv4' will be added to the end 
> of the first sentence.  To be clear,  this recommendation
> is simply a statement of what's currently in AGv4,  therefore it is more of 
> an 'Advisory' than a 'Recommendation'.  It would read:
> 
>       '14.1.    In addition to, or instead of, an 'Objection Based on General 
> Principles of International Law' (note:  or whatever new title is chosen per  
>                   Recommendation 1.2) ICANN GAC and At-Large Advisory 
> Committees or their individual governments in the case of the GAC have the 
> possibility to           use the 'Community Objection' procedure as currently 
> specified in AGv4.  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.'
> 
> c.    Create a new 14.2 that contains a slightly modified version of the last 
> sentence of the current 14.2.  It would read:
> 
>       '14.2     The CWG recommends that the fees for Community Objections by 
> the GAC or the At-Large Advisory Committees be lowered or removed.'
> 
> d.    Leave the second 14.2 as it is but re-number it 14.3.  As discussed on 
> the call, and reflected in the poll results,  there is limited support for 
> this measure.
> 
> e.    Delete the current 14.3 as it is made superfluous by the new 
> Recommendation 11.2, which reads:  
> 
>       11.2   If requested in writing by the GAC or ALAC the Independent 
> Objector (IO) will prepare and submit a relevant Objection.  The IO will 
> liaise with the      GAC or ALAC in drafting such an Objection.    Any 
> Objection initiated from a GAC or ALAC request will go through exactly the 
> same process as an                 Objection from any other source and must 
> meet exactly the same standard for success as an Objection from any other 
> source.  
> RT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 14.      Expanded use of the Community Objections.
> 
> 14.1
> 
> (17/21)
> 
> Clarification of Fees
> 
> The fee structure for governments to file community objections should be 
> clarified, for both the objector and the responder.
> 
> 14.2
> 
> (17/21)
> 
> Available to At-Large and GAC
> 
> In addition to, or instead of, an 'Objection Based on General Principles of 
> International Law' (note:  or whatever new title is chosen per Recommendation 
> 1.2) ICANN GAC and At-Large Advisory Committees or their individual 
> governments in the case of the GAC 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. The CWG recommends that the fees for such objections by the GAC or 
> the At-Large Advisory Committees be lowered or removed.
> 
> 14.2
> 
> (9/21)
> 
> Lower Threshold for At-Large and GAC
> 
> ICANN should consider looking into a slight lowering of   this threshold for 
> Objections from the GAC or At-Large Advisory Committees. Staff should explore 
> ways to reasonably lower the required standard for a successful At-Large or 
> GAC Advisory Committee objection in the areas of standing (3.1.2.4), level of 
> community opposition (3.4.4) or likelihood of detriment   (3.4.4).  
> 
> 14.3
> 
> (19/21)
> 
> No Fees for At-Large and GAC
> 
> ICANN Advisory Committees 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. Any other governmental objection should be accompanied 
> with the same filing/responding fees as applicable to other objections.
> 
>