Re: [soac-mapo] Community Objection recommendations

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Milton makes a good point.  

I'm OK with deleting 'in addition to'.  

RT


On Sep 18, 2010, at 4:03 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> That should be an easy fix if others agree. 
> 
> Chuck
> 
>  
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 05:15 AM
> To: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>; soac-mapo <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx> 
> Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Community Objection recommendations 
>  
> I have a bit of a problem with the “in addition to” in the new 14.1.
> I don’t think we should encourage objectors to game the process by dressing 
> up the same objection as both based on international law, or on community. It 
> is either one or the other. While it is possible to think of some edge cases 
> where there might be an overlap, I think objectors need to decide what their 
> objection is really based on, and not try to maximize their chances of 
> success by trying any and every avenue.
>  
> --MM
>  
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
> Of Richard Tindal
> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:30 PM
> To: soac-mapo
> Subject: [soac-mapo] Community Objection recommendations
>  
> 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.
>