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

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck - please take care of yourself and get better soon. My father had kidney 
stones (and complications) so I have some idea of your ordeal.  I wish you a 
very speedy recovery. 

Antony

On Dec 31, 2010, at 5:07 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Cheryl/Jon – thanks for all of your efforts in getting this effort going and 
> for taking the lead in moving it forward.
> 
>  
> 
> CWG members – please accept my apologies for my limited ability to 
> participate in this task.  As some of you may or may not know, I experienced 
> a complication to what was supposed to be a simple out-patient procedure on 
> 21 December to break up additional stones in both of my kidneys and was 
> hospitalized for six days.  I am home now but working on what is a slow 
> recovery so I have to pace myself carefully and get plenty of rest.  
> Consequently, I will let the rest of you cooperate as you have done so well 
> in the past to complete this task.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks, Chuck
> 
>  
> 
> From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 6:10 PM
> To: soac-mapo
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Heather.Dryden Dryden; Frank March; Stéphane Van Gelder; 
> Jon Nevett; Jeff Neuman; Kurt Pritz; Margie Milam
> Subject: Update- Rec6 Action Item URGENT input from CWG is required by 
> January 7th 2011.
> 
>  
> 
> 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
> 
> __________
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>