Re: [soac-mapo] Community Objection -- a draft recommendation

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

To add some colour to this.  It contains three things

1.   an explanation of the existing Community Objection and how it can be used 
by ACs and others

2.   a recommendation that fees be reduced or removed for Community Objections 
submitted by ACs 

3.   a recommendation that staff look into three areas where the required 
standard for a successful objection might be lowered, if the objection is filed 
by an AC

RT



On Sep 9, 2010, at 4:52 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:

> All,
> 
> Per the discussion on yesterday's call,  here is a draft recommendation 
> related to Community Objection
> 
> RT
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> In addition to, or instead of, an 'Objection Based on General Principles of 
> International Law'  (note:  or whatever title we end up with) ICANN Advisory 
> Groups or their individual members have the possibility to use the 'Community 
> Objection' procedure. A "Community Objection" can be filed if there is 
> substantial opposition to the gTLD application from a significant portion of 
> the community to which the gTLD string may be explicitly or implicitly 
> targeted.  Procedures for such objection are detailed throughout Module 3 of 
> the Applicant Guidebook (but in particular Sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2.4, 3.1.3, 
> 3.3.4 and 3.4.4).    In the current formulation, for such an objection to be 
> successful the objector must prove that:
> 
> The community invoked by the objector is a clearly delineated community; and
> Community opposition to the application is substantial; and
> There is a strong association between the community invoked and the 
> applied-for gTLD string; and
> There is a likelihood of detriment to the community named by the objector if 
> the gTLD application is approved.
> 
> The CWG recommends that the fees for such objections by Advisory Groups be 
> lowered or removed.  The CWG also recommends that staff explore ways to 
> reasonably lower the required standard for a successful Advisory Group 
> objection in the areas of standing (3.1.2.4), level of community opposition 
> (3.4.4) or likelihood of detriment (3.4.4).  
>