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

[Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Krista,
Yes,  that's fine.
Margie

From: Krista Papac [mailto:krista.papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 2:49 PM
To: Margie Milam; Gomes, Chuck; soac-mapo
Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Follow-up from Monday's Consultation on Rec. 6

Hi Margie,

I had also volunteered for the drafting team via the chat.  Can you please add 
me to the list?

Thank you,
Krista

Krista Papac
Chief Strategy Officer
AusRegistry Group Pty. Ltd.
5267 Warner Avenue, Suite 176
Huntington Beach. California United States. 92649
Ph:  +1 714 846 8780
Fax: +1 323 443 3573
Email: krista.papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:krista.papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Web: www.ausregistry.com

- Follow AusRegistry International on Twitter: 
www.twitter.com/ausregistryint<http://www.twitter.com/ausregistryint>

The information contained in this communication is intended for the named 
recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged 
and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must 
not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have 
received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system 
and notify us immediately.

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Margie Milam
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 1:07 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; soac-mapo
Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Follow-up from Monday's Consultation on Rec. 6

Yes - that is correct.  I am already in contact with the drafting team to set 
up a call to do this work.

Margie

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 2:05 PM
To: Margie Milam; soac-mapo
Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Follow-up from Monday's Consultation on Rec. 6
Importance: High

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-order-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.pdf>.  
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
___________