RE: [soac-mapo] Community Objection recommendations

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

If anyone is opposed to this, please speak up.  Note though that we
won't make this change until our meeting on Monday because we don't want
to cause confusion with the poll.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Richard Tindal
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 11:09 AM
To: soac-mapo
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Community Objection recommendations

 

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.