Re: [soac-mapo] Community Objection recommendations

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

+1


On 18 September 2010 05:15, Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>  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.
>
>
>