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

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck, thanks so much. As to your own participation, I know that I am joining 
others who are FIRST, wanting you to recover, and join us, once that occurs, in 
our work on this, and other items.
I will stay tuned for the scheduled call with CWG.
Marilyn Cade
Subject: [soac-mapo] RE: Update- Rec6 Action Item URGENT input from CWG is 
required by January 7th 2011.
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 19:07:48 -0500
From: cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To: langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx; soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
CC: Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx; Frank.March@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; jon@xxxxxxxxxx; Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx; 
kurt.pritz@xxxxxxxxx; Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx



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 MilamSenior Policy CounselorICANN__________