Re: [soac-mapo] Update- Rec6 Action Item URGENT input from CWG is required by January 7th 2011.

[Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Cheryl.

The role of the Independent Objector (and scope) is also an issue that we need 
to continue to work on for our response to the board.

Best,
Robin


On Dec 31, 2010, at 3:10 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:

> On Behalf of the CWG Co-Chairs  please find below  and on  this wiki page 
> <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Recommendation+6+Cross+Community+Work+Group+Cartagena+Board+Resolution+response+drafting+space
>  > some text drafted  to begin our development of the CWG response to the Dec 
> 10th Board Resolution from the Cartagena meeting, that we need to deal with 
> as a matter of urgency....  A doodle will be forthcoming from staff to 
> ascertain a time on 5,6 or 7 January when the CWG  can teleconference to 
> complete final drafting of our response to the Board Resolution, so that it 
> can be transmitted to the Board no later than 2359 UTC on January 7th...  We 
> do realize that this time of year will mean many contributors  will have 
> limited access and ability to contribute to both the drafting online and the 
> teleconference ( we will use an Adobe Connect room for the drafting at that 
> meeting, but we are restrained by the timing requirements outlined in the 
> resolution, so must simply do our best;  We thank you all in advance  for 
> whatever contribution(s) you are able to make to this important process...
> 
> 
> Kindest regards,
> 
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
> On Behalf of all the Rec6CWG Co-Chairs
> 
> 
> Please contribute edits/ comments suggestions  to the current draft text 
> (kindly provided by Jon Nevett on behalf of the CWG pre Cartagena response to 
> staff questions drafting team)   either, here to this list and/or  as 
> comments or direct edits to the wiki page (edits etc., from the list will be 
> copied across to the wiki as well, {if you do this please  use a <name> next 
> to  a proposed insertion or comment/note and DO NOT DELETE text convention!} 
> 
> Drafted text  to be developed by the CWG  by January 7th 2011  in response to 
> Resolution (see for full resolution regarding outstanding issues with new 
> gTLD's  See 2. in Dec 10th Board Resolutions 
> http://icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#2     which (in part) 
> reads...
> Whereas, the working group formed to address implementation of the 
> GNSO-recommended policy concerning morality and public order objections made 
> recommendations (the Recommendation 6 Community Working Group), several of 
> which were incorporated into the guidebook, and the working group has 
> clarified the remaining recommendations in a series of consultations with 
> ICANN staff and Board members. Discussions will continue on (1) the roles of 
> the Board, GAC, and ALAC in the objection process, (2) the incitement to 
> discrimination criterion, and (3) fees for GAC and ALAC-instigated 
> objections. ICANN will take into account public comment including the advice 
> of the GAC, and looks forward to receiving further input from the working 
> group in an attempt to close this issue*.*
> 
> Whereas, the public comment period on the English version of the Proposed 
> Final Applicant Guidebook concluded just prior to this Board Meeting on 10 
> December 2010, with the closure of other comments on translated versions to 
> follow in the order posted, and ICANN will carefully consider all of the 
> comments received.
> 
> Whereas, the Board participated in discussions and listened to comment from 
> stakeholders during the meeting in Cartagena.
> 
> Whereas, the Governmental Advisory Committee communiqué from Cartagena 
> indicates that the GAC will provide a list of issues that the GAC believes 
> are still outstanding and require additional discussion between the Board and 
> the GAC.
> 
> Resolved (2010.12.10.21), the Board:
> 
> Appreciates the GAC's acceptance of the Board's invitation for an 
> inter-sessional meeting to address the GAC's outstanding concerns with the 
> new gTLD process. The Board anticipates this meeting occurring in February 
> 2011, and looks forward to planning for this meeting in consultation and 
> cooperation with the GAC, and to hearing the GAC's specific views on each 
> remaining issue.
> Directs staff to make revisions to the guidebook as appropriate based on the 
> comments received during the public comment period on the Proposed Final 
> Applicant Guidebook and comments on the New gTLD Economic Study Phase II 
> Report.
> Invites the Recommendation 6 Community Working Group to provide final written 
> proposals on the issues identified above by 7 January 2011, and directs staff 
> to provide briefing materials to enable the Board to make a decision in 
> relation to the working group's recommendations.
> Notes the continuing work being done by the Joint Applicant Support Working 
> Group, and reiterates the Board's 28 October 2010 resolutions of thanks and 
> encouragement.
> Directs staff to synthesize the results of these consultations and comments, 
> and to prepare revisions to the guidebook to enable the Board to make a 
> decision on the launch of the new gTLD program as soon as possible.
> Commits to provide a thorough and reasoned explanation of ICANN decisions, 
> the rationale thereof and the sources of data and information on which ICANN 
> relied, including providing a rationale regarding the Board's decisions in 
> relation to economic analysis.
> Thanks the ICANN community for the tremendous patience, dedication, and 
> commitment to resolving these difficult and complex issues.
> In preparation for our CWG response to this resolution then; The Co-Chairs of 
> the CWG asked staff for further clarification to assist in our understand of 
> the Board resolution.  This resulted (amongst other things) in the following 
> reply from Kurt => "...after the second meeting there were three issues and 
> the working group position in these three issues were roughly: (1) the Board 
> role (that in cases of an objection being upheld by the review panel, (I.e., 
> rejecting the TLD application), the Board must sustain the objection by a 
> majority vote). (2) Amending the discrimination standard: changing 
> "incitement to" or promotion of, to "incitement to and instigation of"; and 
> adding a number of terms that qualified as discrimination;  (3) that ALAC and 
> GAC have standing to make Limited Public Interest Objections and should not 
> have to pay the dispute resolution fee."
>  
> Therefore the Board is seeking by 7 January 2011 a proposal from the CWG for 
> the Board’s consideration, with regard to the three specific issues discussed 
> in the Cartagena resolution.  In preparing the proposal, it would be helpful 
> if the CWG would suggest specific revisions to the Proposed Final Guidebook 
> to address the CWG’s concerns with regard to each of these issues, instead of 
> making general statements that could be interpreted by Staff/Board 
> differently than the CWG interprets them.     
> 
> It would also be useful to note the level of support for each of the 
> revisions, and also any background / rationale we have  for each so that the 
> Board may better understand our perspective(s) 
> 
> With regard to the three specific issues described in the resolution, the 
> Board intended that staff members not to contribute directly to this writing, 
> however recognizing the extraordinary short time frame we have, staff as they 
> clarified for us the intent /meaning/requests to us in the resolution, have 
> categorized/organized the issues through a list of questions for our 
> consideration in drafting a summary of the Working Group requests on each of 
> the issues;  these are listed below and  some initial text has been inserted  
> for us to edit and develop our response from.
>  
> 
> ********
> 
> With regard to the first issue (the roles of the Board, GAC, and ALAC in the 
> objection process), we need to provide clarification regarding the 
> circumstances under which the CWG suggests that the Board would vote 
> regarding an application that is subject to a Rec6 Objection:-
> 
> 
> ·      clarify the circumstances under which the Board would vote with regard 
> to an Rec6 objection and/or with gTLD applications generally,  
> 
> (draft response) Based on the written responses to the pre-Cartagena 
> questions from the ICANN staff, as well as the various discussions during the 
> Cartagena meeting, the CWG has recommended that the Board would have to 
> specifically approve any recommendations from third party experts to reject a 
> TLD application based on a Recommendation 6 objection.  The CWG has not 
> suggested, however, that the Board be required to take a vote on specific 
> Recommendation 6 objections where the third party experts reject such an 
> objection.  Nor did the CWG suggest that the Board be required to approve 
> every new gTLD string.    <Jon>
> 
> and  
> 
> ·      if there is consensus on it, clarify the intended role of the expert 
> panel (i.e., dispute resolution provider, mediator, advisor or other).  
> 
> (draft response)  A consensus of the CWG recommended that the ICANN Board may 
> "contract appropriate expert resources capable of providing objective 
> advice."  The CWG did not recommend that the Board should be a trier of fact 
> or should hear in the first instance every Rec6 objection with a requirement 
> that it make a determination on the merits in every case. 
> 
> The CWG did not reach consensus over the actual form or weight of the expert 
> advice (e.g. whether the expert panel should be a dispute resolution 
> provider, mediator or advisor).  Some members of the CWG take a broader 
> definition of dispute resolution panel than others.  Some members think that 
> the experts should not hear from the objector and the applicant at all – 
> whether in a trial setting or written argumentation – others disagree and 
> support an adversarial process.  There was Strong Support, but not consensus, 
> that the experts should be able to look at the context of the application or 
> applicant in evaluating a Recommendation 6 objection – others disagree and 
> believe that the experts should conduct their analysis on the basis of only 
> the string.   
> 
> While the CWG did not reach consensus on these issues, it did explicitly 
> remove all reference to "dispute resolution" in its recommendations, and made 
> no requirement that the experts engage in an adversarial process between 
> applicant and objector.  Furthermore, the CWG did achieve Strong Support 
> (though not full consensus) for not calling the evaluation process one of 
> "dispute resolution," and requiring that the experts' skills be in legal 
> interpretation of instruments of international law.<Jon>
> 
> 
> 
> ********
>  
> With regard to the incitement to discrimination criterion, we need to confirm 
> the specific language revisions the CWG requests with regard to the 
> “incitement to or promotion of” portion of the criterion.   After the 
> discussion in Cartagena, does the CWG continue to request that the standard 
> be “incitement and instigation” or is some other language preferable?   In 
> addition, the CWG could also state whether it still believes that the 
> standard should be expanded to include the list of additional discrimination 
> grounds that were referenced in the CWG Report:-
> 
> 
> ·     CWG to confirm the specific language requested with regard to the 
> “incitement to or promotion of” term in the original standard.  After the 
> discussion in Cartagena, does the CWG continue to request that the term be 
> “incitement and instigation” or is some other language preferable?  
> 
> (draft response) In its report dated 21 September, 2010, the CWG recommended 
> that "incitement and instigation" be used in the criteria for discrimination. 
>  In ICANN's explanatory memorandum on this issue dated 12 November 2010, it 
> provided a rationale of why "incitement to or promotion of" is a more 
> appropriate standard.  Based on the ICANN response, the discussions in 
> Cartagena during which several CWG members stated that they no longer agree 
> with the recommendation, and some admitted confusion over the legal impact of 
> the word choice, the CWG may no longer have a consensus on this issue NOTE -- 
> confirm -- do we want to do a straw poll?  Do we want to try to recommend 
> substitute language?.  With that said, many members of the CWG still argue 
> that a higher standard than "incitement to or promotion of" would be 
> appropriate.   <Jon>
> 
> ·      the CWG needs to reiterate consensus on the standard including an 
> expanded list of additional discrimination grounds that were referenced in 
> the CWG Report.  
> 
> (draft response) Two consensus recommendations of the CWG were to extend the 
> list of potential discriminations also to include discrimination based on 
> age, disability, actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity, 
> or political or other opinion.  The CWG also suggested by a full consensus 
> that such discriminations must rise to the level of violating generally 
> accepted legal norms recognized under "principles of international law."  As 
> such, any additional discriminations listed in the second prong still must be 
> found to be in violation of principles of international law.  
> 
> We do not believe that recognizing additional discriminations would 
> significantly broaden the types of objections brought.  The CWG does not 
> believe that any additional research needs to be conducted on whether such 
> additional classes are protected under international law today.  It has been 
> brought to the CWG's attention that these additional discriminations have 
> some protection under international law.  If they are recognized today, then 
> the Board and the experts would rely on them.  If they are not at that level 
> yet, then they won't.  Importantly, such additional discriminations might be 
> recognized at some future date and the process should be fluid enough to take 
> them into account at such time.  The suggestion in Cartagena of a catch-all 
> discrimination criteria – such as "any other discriminations that are 
> generally recognized under international law" – seems to be acceptable to 
> many of the CWG members (confirm). <Jon>
> 
> **********
> 
> With regard to the fees for GAC and ALAC-instigated objections, we need to 
> identify what (if any) fees should be charged and where the funds should come 
> from, and any other restrictions or additional steps that the CWG suggests 
> for dealing with GAC and ALAC-instigated objection:-
> 
> 
> ·      what fees should be paid by ALAC and GAC (if filing and dispute 
> resolution fees are waived, are the number of free objections limited)
> 
> ·       by what process is an ALAC and GAC objection formed and approved? 
> 
> (draft response) There was considerable discussion of this in the meeting, 
> and at this stage subject to ratification as a formal process of the ALAC it 
> is envisaged that ALAC would take recommendations of any of it's At-Large 
> organizations ALSes (who may either hold a Community based objection view 
> themselves  or  be passing such a concern on from the local Internet 
> Community that they are engages with or are representative for)  up through 
> the RALOs and then for ALAC consideration an ALAC vote for formally  raise 
> such an objection would require a super-majority vote to pass; and that the 
> GAC would develop a consensus based process.
> 
> (draft response) Also note here that in addition to the above use of the 
> "Community Objection" process by the ALAC and GAC; If the Independent 
> Objector (IO) function is maintained in the processing of new gTLD 
> Applications, then  an alternate pathway for  AC objections  to be considered 
> would be for the IO to take up such formally prepared objection notices from 
> the ALAC and/or GAC and subject to the same standards of  check and balance 
> criteria,  assessment etc., as any other IO instigated objection process 
> these as if self instigated. <CLO added text>  
> 
> From our clarification document:
> 
> A full consensus of the CWG recommended that fees be lowered or removed for 
> objections from the GAC or ALAC.  It is outside the CWG’s scope to comment on 
> the process for the GAC or ALAC to lodge objections.  The CWG assumes that 
> any Rec 6 objections put forth by the GAC or ALAC will be approved according 
> its own internal processes.  <Jon>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List here any other issues?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ***************************************************************************************************************************
> Below is copy (FYI) of the earlier email interchanges over that last few 
> days, used in preparation of the above draft statement  and process 
> planning....
> 
> On 1 January 2011 09:10, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> OK  thanks Jon,  I'll just do a small tidy up of the email text and forward 
> this onto the Rec6CWG discussion list... poste haste...  And for those of you 
> who are not yet into 2011 (like Frank and I are) I hope you have a very Happy 
> New Year...
> 
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr
> (CLO)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 1 January 2011 08:22, Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Cheryl:  As requested, I've inserted some draft text below based on the 
> drafting team work and some of my own observations of the meetings in 
> Cartagena.  The issue of the criteria (instigation and incitement vs. 
> promotion) definitely will require the most work of the group next week.  
> Hope that this helps.  Best, Jon
> 
> 
> On Dec 30, 2010, at 8:11 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
> 
>> Thanks  Chuck=> I was literally just snipping those threads together to send 
>> through...  So you saved me that :-)  Now here is what I propose we send  
>> through to the list for *URGENT* action,  but clearly 'we' will have to take 
>> the lead on this  in such a short time frame.
>> 
>> I suggest we get the list discussions on the responses to the clarification 
>> questions posed  going ASAP =>  Jon if you could insert (on behalf of the 
>> drafting team) the current "take on these issues" based on pre, peri and 
>> post Cartagena meetings that would be great and will enable the list to have 
>> something to get their teeth into... I have  also set  up a Wiki space for 
>> edits and comments to be collected as an adjunct  to list activity  
>> <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Recommendation+6+Cross+Community+Work+Group+Cartagena+Board+Resolution+response+drafting+space>
>>  ; Then we need to convene a meeting of the CWG  on 7th January  with the 
>> intention of finalizing response text and transmitting the agreed  text to 
>> the Board at the conclusion of that meeting  on that day no later than 2355 
>> UTC.  Looking at times previously  popular for CWG Meetings  I would suggest 
>> we look to a 90=> 120 min call  starting  between 1700 and 2000 UTC  on 7th 
>> January  (the earlier  start would perhaps be better but we could doodle I 
>> suppose)
>> 
>> 
>> <Proposed message to list => Send to list after insertion of text by Jon and 
>> drafting team plus additional edits/sign off after list input at meeting on 
>> or before 7th January
>> **************************************************************************************
>> 
>>  {Insert a preamble  / intro and state that a teleconference for final 
>> drafting  on text of response will be held <insert date and time as UTC > 
>> and note that all comments edits  questions  put to the list and the wiki 
>> page will be considered at that time 
>> <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Recommendation+6+Cross+Community+Work+Group+Cartagena+Board+Resolution+response+drafting+space>
>>  } 
>> 
>> The Co-Chairs of the CWG asked staff for further clarification to assist in 
>> our understand of the Board resolution.  This resulted (amongst other 
>> things) in the following reply from Kurt => "...after the second meeting 
>> there were three issues and the working group position in these three issues 
>> were roughly: (1) the Board role (that in cases of an objection being upheld 
>> by the review panel, (I.e., rejecting the TLD application), the Board must 
>> sustain the objection by a majority vote). (2) Amending the discrimination 
>> standard: changing "incitement to" or promotion of, to "incitement to and 
>> instigation of"; and adding a number of terms that qualified as 
>> discrimination;  (3) that ALAC and GAC have standing to make Limited Public 
>> Interest Objections and should not have to pay the dispute resolution fee."
>>  
>> Therefore the Board is seeking by 7 January 2011 a proposal from the CWG for 
>> the Board’s consideration, with regard to the three specific issues 
>> discussed in the Cartagena resolution.  In preparing the proposal, it would 
>> be helpful if the CWG would suggest specific revisions to the Proposed Final 
>> Guidebook to address the CWG’s concerns with regard to each of these issues, 
>> instead of making general statements that could be interpreted by 
>> Staff/Board differently than the CWG interprets them.     
>> 
>> It would also be useful to note the level of support for each of the 
>> revisions, and also any background / rationale we have  for each so that the 
>> Board may better understand our perspective(s) 
>> 
>> With regard to the three specific issues described in the resolution, the 
>> Board intended that staff members not to contribute directly to this 
>> writing, however recognizing the extraordinary short time frame we have, 
>> staff as they clarified for us the intent /meaning/requests to us in the 
>> resolution, have categorized/organized the issues through a list of 
>> questions for our consideration in drafting a summary of the Working Group 
>> requests on each of the issues;  these are listed below and  some initial 
>> text has been inserted  for us to edit and develop our response from.
>>  
>> With regard to the first issue (the roles of the Board, GAC, and ALAC in the 
>> objection process), we need to provide clarification regarding the 
>> circumstances under which the CWG suggests that the Board would vote 
>> regarding an application that is subject to a Rec6 Objection:-
>> ·      clarify the circumstances under which the Board would vote with 
>> regard to an Rec6 objection and/or with gTLD applications generally,  <Jon 
>> Insert DRAFT Text>
> 
> 
> Based on the written responses to the pre-Cartagena questions from the ICANN 
> staff, as well as the various discussions during the Cartagena meeting, the 
> CWG has recommended that the Board would have to specifically approve any 
> recommendations from third party experts to reject a TLD application based on 
> a Recommendation 6 objection.  The CWG has not suggested, however, that the 
> Board be required to take a vote on specific Recommendation 6 objections 
> where the third party experts reject such an objection.  Nor did the CWG 
> suggest that the Board be required to approve every new gTLD string.    
> 
> 
>> 
>> and  
>> 
>> ·      if there is consensus on it, clarify the intended role of the expert 
>> panel (i.e., dispute resolution provider, mediator, advisor or other).   
>> <Jon Insert DRAFT Text>
> 
> A consensus of the CWG recommended that the ICANN Board may "contract 
> appropriate expert resources capable of providing objective advice."  The CWG 
> did not recommend that the Board should be a trier of fact or should hear in 
> the first instance every Rec6 objection with a requirement that it make a 
> determination on the merits in every case. 
> 
> The CWG did not reach consensus over the actual form or weight of the expert 
> advice (e.g. whether the expert panel should be a dispute resolution 
> provider, mediator or advisor).  Some members of the CWG take a broader 
> definition of dispute resolution panel than others.  Some members think that 
> the experts should not hear from the objector and the applicant at all -- 
> whether in a trial setting or written argumentation -- others disagree and 
> support an adversarial process.  There was Strong Support, but not consensus, 
> that the experts should be able to look at the context of the application or 
> applicant in evaluating a Recommendation 6 objection -- others disagree and 
> believe that the experts should conduct their analysis on the basis of only 
> the string.   
> 
> While the CWG did not reach consensus on these issues, it did explicitly 
> remove all reference to "dispute resolution" in its recommendations, and made 
> no requirement that the experts engage in an adversarial process between 
> applicant and objector.  Furthermore, the CWG did achieve Strong Support 
> (though not full consensus) for not calling the evaluation process one of 
> "dispute resolution," and requiring that the experts' skills be in legal 
> interpretation of instruments of international law.
> 
> 
>> 
>>  
>> With regard to the incitement to discrimination criterion, we need to 
>> confirm the specific language revisions the CWG requests with regard to the 
>> “incitement to or promotion of” portion of the criterion.   After the 
>> discussion in Cartagena, does the CWG continue to request that the standard 
>> be “incitement and instigation” or is some other language preferable?   In 
>> addition, the CWG could also state whether it still believes that the 
>> standard should be expanded to include the list of additional discrimination 
>> grounds that were referenced in the CWG Report:-
>> ·     CWG to confirm the specific language requested with regard to the 
>> “incitement to or promotion of” term in the original standard.  After the 
>> discussion in Cartagena, does the CWG continue to request that the term be 
>> “incitement and instigation” or is some other language preferable?  <Jon 
>> Insert DRAFT Text>
> 
> In its report dated 21 September, 2010, the CWG recommended that "incitement 
> and instigation" be used in the criteria for discrimination.  In ICANN's 
> explanatory memorandum on this issue dated 12 November 2010, it provided a 
> rationale of why "incitement to or promotion of" is a more appropriate 
> standard.  Based on the ICANN response, the discussions in Cartagena during 
> which several CWG members stated that they no longer agree with the 
> recommendation, and some admitted confusion over the legal impact of the word 
> choice, the CWG may no longer have a consensus on this issue [NOTE -- confirm 
> -- do we want to do a straw poll?  Do we want to try to recommend substitute 
> language?].  With that said, many members of the CWG still argue that a 
> higher standard than "incitement to or promotion of" would be appropriate.   
> 
>> 
>> ·      the CWG needs to reiterate consensus on the standard including an 
>> expanded list of additional discrimination grounds that were referenced in 
>> the CWG Report.  <Jon Insert DRAFT Text>
> 
> Two consensus recommendations of the CWG were to extend the list of potential 
> discriminations also to include discrimination based on age, disability, 
> actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity, or political or 
> other opinion.  The CWG also suggested by a full consensus that such 
> discriminations must rise to the level of violating generally accepted legal 
> norms recognized under "principles of international law."  As such, any 
> additional discriminations listed in the second prong still must be found to 
> be in violation of principles of international law.  
> 
> We do not believe that recognizing additional discriminations would 
> significantly broaden the types of objections brought.  The CWG does not 
> believe that any additional research needs to be conducted on whether such 
> additional classes are protected under international law today.  It has been 
> brought to the CWG's attention that these additional discriminations have 
> some protection under international law.  If they are recognized today, then 
> the Board and the experts would rely on them.  If they are not at that level 
> yet, then they won't.  Importantly, such additional discriminations might be 
> recognized at some future date and the process should be fluid enough to take 
> them into account at such time.  The suggestion in Cartagena of a catch-all 
> discrimination criteria -- such as "any other discriminations that are 
> generally recognized under international law" -- seems to be acceptable to 
> many of the CWG members (confirm).
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> With regard to the fees for GAC and ALAC-instigated objections, we need to 
>> identify what (if any) fees should be charged and where the funds should 
>> come from, and any other restrictions or additional steps that the CWG 
>> suggests for dealing with GAC and ALAC-instigated objection:-
>> ·      what fees should be paid by ALAC and GAC (if filing and dispute 
>> resolution fees are waived, are the number of free objections limited)
>> 
>> ·       by what process is an ALAC and GAC objection formed and approved? 
>> There was considerable discussion of this in the meeting, and at this stage 
>> subject to ratification as a formal process of the ALAC it is envisaged that 
>> ALAC would take recommendations of any of it's At-Large organizations ALSes 
>> (who may either hold a Community based objection view themselves  or  be 
>> passing such a concern on from the local Internet Community that they are 
>> engages with or are representative for)  up through the RALOs and then for 
>> ALAC consideration an ALAC vote for formally  raise such an objection would 
>> require a super-majority vote to pass; and that the GAC would develop a 
>> consensus based process.
>> 
>> <CLO added text>  Also note here that in addition to the above use of the 
>> "Community Objection" process by the ALA and GAC; *If* the Independent 
>> Objector (IO) function is maintained in the processing of new gTLD 
>> Applications, then  an alternate pathway for  AC objections  to be 
>> considered would be for the IO to take up such formally prepared objection 
>> notices from the ALAC and/or GAC and subject to the same standards of  he k 
>> and balance criteria  assessment etc., as any other IO instigated objection 
>> process these as if self instigated.
>> <Jon>
>> From our clarification document:
> 
>> A full consensus of the CWG recommended that fees be lowered or removed for 
>> objections from the GAC or ALAC.  It is outside the CWG’s scope to comment 
>> on the process for the GAC or ALAC to lodge objections.  The CWG assumes 
>> that any Rec 6 objections put forth by the GAC or ALAC will be approved 
>> according its own internal processes.  
>> 
>> List here any other issues?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **************************************************************************************
>> 
>> 
>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr
>> (CLO)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 31 December 2010 09:49, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Here is some clarification that Cheryl, Heather & I received from Margie 
>> that may be useful with regard to the part of the Board motion relating the 
>> Rec6 CWG.
>> 
>>  
>> Chuck
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> From: Margie Milam [mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx] 
>> Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 5:36 PM
>> To: Gomes, Chuck
>> Cc: langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx; heather.dryden@xxxxxxxx
>> 
>> 
>> Subject: RE: Cartagena Update- Rec6
>> 
>>  
>> Hi Chuck-
>> 
>>  
>> I received additional information today regarding the Board Resolution, and 
>> would like supplement the information I provided in my earlier email.
>> 
>> We would like to provide some more detail – and reiterate that the Board is 
>> seeking a proposal directly from the CWG with regard to the three specific 
>> issues described in the resolution. Since the Board intended that staff 
>> members not to contribute directly to this writing, we thought it might be 
>> helpful to categorize or organize the issues through a list of questions for 
>> your consideration in drafting a summary of the Working Group requests on 
>> each of the issues. The answers to these, we think, are the consensus 
>> positions on the three issues developed by the Working Group attendees at 
>> the two meetings in Cartagena.   
>> 
>> Once there is written clarity on the Working Group position on the three 
>> issues, then the Board can consider whether the proposals can be added those 
>> Rec6 proposals already in the Guidebook. We believe the Working Group and 
>> Board went a long way to providing that clarity in the Cartagena meetings 
>> and this writing restates the conclusions arrived  there. 
>> 
>> With regard to the first issue (the role of the Board in the objection 
>> process), the writing should:
>> 
>> ·      clarify the circumstances under which the Board would vote with 
>> regard to an Rec6 objection or with gTLD applications generally, and  
>> 
>> ·      if there is consensus on it, clarify the intended role of the expert 
>> panel (i.e., dispute resolution provider, mediator, advisor or other).  
>> 
>> With regard to the incitement to discrimination criterion:  
>> 
>> ·      the CWG should confirm the specific language requested with regard to 
>> the “incitement to or promotion of” term in the original standard.  After 
>> the discussion in Cartagena, does the CWG continue to request that the term 
>> be “incitement and instigation” or is some other language preferable?  
>> 
>> ·      the CWG should reiterate consensus on the standard including an 
>> expanded list of additional discrimination grounds that were referenced in 
>> the CWG Report.
>> 
>> With regard to the fees for GAC and ALAC-instigated objections, the CWG 
>> should identify:
>> 
>> ·      what fees should be paid by ALAC and GAC (if filing and dispute 
>> resolution fees are waived, are the number of free objections limited)
>> 
>> ·       by what process is an ALAC and GAC objection formed and approved? 
>> There was considerable discussion of this in the meeting: that ALAC would 
>> take recommendations of smaller At-Large organizations up through the RALOs 
>> and then for ALAC consideration; and that the GAC would develop a consensus 
>> based process.
>> 
>> In preparing the proposal, it would be helpful if the CWG would suggest 
>> specific revisions to the Proposed Final Guidebook to address the CWG’s 
>> concerns with regard to each of these issues that statements so that 
>> positions are not misinterpreted. These are just suggestions based on our 
>> interpretation of the resolution and the discussions from the Cartagena 
>> meeting. 
>> 
>> I hope that this clarification is helpful.  We will be happy to provide 
>> additional information at your request.
>> 
>> Thanks & Happy Holidays!
>> 
>> Margie
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> From: Margie Milam 
>> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 4:09 PM
>> To: 'cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx'
>> Cc: 'heather.dryden@xxxxxxxx'; 'langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx'
>> Subject: FW: Cartagena Update- Rec6
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> Hi Chuck-
>> 
>>  
>> After inquiring internally, here’s what I understand regarding the Board 
>> resolution.
>> 
>>  
>> The Board is seeking by 7 January 2011 a proposal from the CWG for the 
>> Board’s consideration with regard to the three specific issues discussed in 
>> the Cartagena resolution.  In preparing the proposal, it would be helpful if 
>> the CWG would suggest specific revisions to the Proposed Final Guidebook to 
>> address the CWG’s concerns with regard to each of these issues, instead of 
>> making general statements that could be interpreted by Staff/Board 
>> differently than the CWG interprets them.     It would also be useful to 
>> note the level of support for each of the revisions.
>> 
>>  
>> With regard to the first issue (the roles of the Board, GAC, and ALAC in the 
>> objection process), the CWG could provide clarification regarding the 
>> circumstances under which the CWG suggests that the Board would vote to 
>> approve an application that is subject to a Rec6 Objection.   It also would 
>> be helpful if the CWG clarifies its suggested intended role of the expert 
>> panel (i.e, primary adjudicator, mediator, advisor or other).  
>> 
>>  
>> With regard to the incitement to discrimination criterion, the CWG could 
>> confirm the specific language revisions the CWG requests with regard to the 
>> “incitement to or promotion of” portion of the criterion.   After the 
>> discussion in Cartagena, does the CWG continue to request that the standard 
>> be “incitement and instigation” or is some other language preferable?   In 
>> addition, the CWG could also state whether it still believes that the 
>> standard should be expanded to include the list of additional discrimination 
>> grounds that were referenced in the CWG Report.
>> 
>>  
>> With regard to the fees for GAC and ALAC-instigated objections, the CWG 
>> could identify what fees should be charged and where the funds should come 
>> from, and any other restrictions or additional steps that the CWG suggests 
>> for dealing with GAC and ALAC-instigated objections.
>> 
>>  
>> These are just suggestions based on our interpretation of the resolution and 
>> the discussions from the Cartagena meeting.   Please let  me know if you 
>> need any additional information in this regard. 
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> Best regards, and happy holidays!
>> 
>>  
>> Margie
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 2:06 PM
>> To: Margie Milam; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: Cartagena Update- Rec6
>> 
>>  
>> I have been trying to determine this Margie.  The Board resolution is 
>> awfully vague.
>> 
>>  
>> Chuck
>> 
>>  
>> From: Margie Milam [mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:39 PM
>> To: Gomes, Chuck; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Cartagena Update- Rec6
>> 
>>  
>> Hi Chuck, Cheryl & Heather,
>> 
>>  
>> I hope your travels back home were uneventful.
>> 
>>  
>> I wanted to follow up with you regarding the developments related to the 
>> Rec6 issue in Cartagena in order to determine whether the CWG will be 
>> conducting any further work on this issue.
>> 
>>  
>> ·        The ICANN Board resolution on Rec6:
>> 
>> Whereas, the working group formed to address implementation of the 
>> GNSO-recommended policy concerning morality and public order objections made 
>> recommendations (the Recommendation 6 Community Working Group), several of 
>> which were incorporated into the guidebook, and the working group has 
>> clarified the remaining recommendations in a series of consultations with 
>> ICANN staff and Board members. Discussions will continue on (1) the roles of 
>> the Board, GAC, and ALAC in the objection process, (2) the incitement to 
>> discrimination criterion, and (3) fees for GAC and ALAC-instigated 
>> objections. ICANN will take into account public comment including the advice 
>> of the GAC, and looks forward to receiving further input from the working 
>> group in an attempt to close this issue.
>> 
>> … Resolved (2010.12.10.21), the Board:
>> 
>> “Invites the Recommendation 6 Community Working Group to provide final 
>> written proposals on the issues identified above by 7 January 2011, and 
>> directs staff to provide briefing materials to enable the Board to make a 
>> decision in relation to the working group's recommendations.”
>> 
>> ·        The GNSO Council Resolution on Rec6:
>> 
>> Proposed motion on recommendations made recently by the cross-community 
>> working group (CWG) regarding implementation of the Council's Recommendation 
>> 6 (which formed the basis for the "morality and public order" section of the 
>> draft AGB.)
>> 
>> WHEREAS, on 8 September 2010 the GNSO Council endorsed GNSO participation in 
>> a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SO’s) 
>> and Advisory Committee (AC’s) to provide guidance to the ICANN new gTLD 
>> Implementation Team and the ICANN Board in relation to the implementation of 
>> the Council's Recommendation 6 regarding strings that contravene 
>> generally-accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that 
>> are recognized under international principles of law;
>> 
>> WHEREAS, the Recommendation 6 cross-community working group (CWG) was 
>> established in accordance with the Terms of Reference also approved by the 
>> GNSO Council on 8 September 2010;
>> 
>> AND WHEREAS, the CWG has since delivered a set of recommendations regarding 
>> implementation of the GNSO Council's Recommendation 6 for new gTLDs to the   
>> community;
>> 
>> RESOLVED, the Council thanks the CWG and its participants, from the GNSO and 
>> other SOs and the ACs, for their hard work; and acknowledges that the CWG 
>> recommendations do not constitute Consensus Policy or GNSO policy 
>> development otherwise within the purview of the GNSO;
>> 
>> RESOLVED FURTHER, the Council recommends that each Stakeholder Group  and 
>> constituency provide feedback as soon as possible to the Council,  on the 
>> CWG recommendations.
>> 
>> In light of these two resolutions,  do you expect any additional work from 
>> the CWG on this issue, or do you expect that each SO/AC (or in the case of 
>> the GNSO Council, each stakeholder group/constituency) would follow up to 
>> provide any clarification of their positions with regard to this  issue?
>> 
>> With the holiday’s quickly approaching and ICANN offices closed next week,  
>> I just wanted to find out whether you envisage any additional work to be 
>> conducted by the CWG prior to the 7 January deadline requested by the Board.
>> 
>> Thanks, and happy holidays to each of you!
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> 
>> Margie
>> 
>> __________
>> 
>> Margie Milam
>> 
>> Senior Policy Counselor
>> 
>> ICANN
>> 
>> __________
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
> 
> 
> 




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx