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

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

Thanks  Richard.  Let the discussion begin.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Richard Tindal
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 7:53 PM
To: soac-mapo
Subject: [soac-mapo] Community Objection -- a draft recommendation

 

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).