RE: [soac-mapo] Follow-up from Monday's Consultation on Rec. 6

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

Thank you very much Margie for doing this in a timely manner.  My
understanding from our meeting on Monday is that you will work with the
small drafting team to prepare a draft response that can be considered
by the full CWG in the very near term, i.e., before Cartagena.  If I am
correct on that, can I impose on you to work with your colleagues to set
up an email list and do a doodle for a first call to start developing
the draft response to the issues you identified below?

 

I know everyone on the DT is already super busy, but it seems to me that
a draft for CWG consideration is needed in the next week and a half so
that we have a little lead time before Cartagena.

 

Heather, Frank, Cheryl - I apologise for not clearing this with each of
you first but it seems essential to get this moving right away.
Certainly, if you have any concerns about my suggestions, please speak
up.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 3:33 PM
To: soac-mapo
Subject: [soac-mapo] Follow-up from Monday's Consultation on Rec. 6

 

Dear All,  

 

On behalf of Kurt and the other staff members that participated on
Monday's consultation, thank you again for your time and attention.  We
appreciate and take seriously the implementation advice put forward by
this working group in its Report, and we share with you the goal of
implementing the best possible new gTLD program.  

 

As discussed on the call, we plan to continue the dialogue with the CWG
and, in preparation for that, some clarification from the CWG would be
greatly appreciated.

 

In general, it would be helpful to identify issues that seem to indicate
a difference of understanding between the CWG Report and the Proposed
Final Applicant Guidebook (and the Explanatory Memorandum
http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/explanatory-memo-morality-public-or
der-12nov10-en.pdf ).  For example:

 

1.      With regard to the recommendations related to the role of the
Board, is it the CWG's position that the ICANN Board be the primary
trier of fact; that is the Board would hear (in the first instance)
every Rec6 objection and be required to make a determination on the
merits?  It did not seem from our discussion that this was the intent.
Rather, based on the discussion, some CWG members indicated that the CWG
agreed that all objections would be filed in the first instance with a
dispute resolution service provider (DRSP), which in turn would appoint
independent expert panelists experienced in making determinations on
issues such as those covered by Rec6.  Then, only in certain
circumstances, would the Board be asked to review the expert
determination.  In light of the Board's resolutions in Trondheim
indicating that the Board "wishes to rely on the determinations of
experts regarding these issues" and that the Board "intends to approve a
standard process for staff to proceed to contract execution and
delegation on applications for new gTLDs where certain parameters are
met," how and at what point does the CWG envisage the Board's
involvement in these objections? 
2.      With regard to the suggestion that the discrimination standard
include additional protected classes (such as disability, gender, actual
or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity, political or other
opinion), is there research suggesting that these additional classes are
widely recognized around the world?  For reference, the results of
ICANN's research were described in an explanatory memorandum published
last year
<http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/morality-public-order-30may09-en.p
df>.  Please consider that such inclusion might significantly broaden
the types of objections that could be brought, thereby potentially
blocking many more otherwise qualified new gTLD applications?  (As an
example, the CWG recommendation includes a mechanism for blocking
applications that incite discrimination against any "opinion"?) 
3.      On the suggestion from the CWG that the GAC or ALAC should be
able to bring objections, different views seem to have been expressed as
to what that would entail; for example, would an objection from just one
GAC or ALAC member be sufficient for the advisory committee (AC) as a
group to file an objection?  Is this intended to provide a veto by
individual governments? Or would a majority or supermajority of AC
members be required for the AC to lodge an objection? 

As discussed on the call, a small drafting team (consisting of Jon
Nevett, Richard Tindal, Avri Doria, Robin Gross, Evan Leibovitch, and
Konstantinos Komaitis) have volunteered to attempt to clarify these
issues and share their draft with the broader CWG prior to Cartagena.
We look forward to the CWG responses to these questions in advance of
Cartagena so our discussions there can reach resolution.  Additionally,
if the CWG thinks that its intent of any other recommendation in the
Report was not understood, clarification now would be appreciated and
productive. 

 

Best Regards,

 

Margie

 

___________

 

Margie Milam

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN

___________