Re: [soac-mapo] Community Objection recommendations

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1

KK


On 18/09/2010 16:08, "Richard Tindal" <richardtindal@xxxxxx> wrote:

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.