[soac-mapo] DOODLE - Urgent / Teleconference for final drafting on text of response

[Gisella Gruber-White <Gisella.Gruber-White@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Wishing you all a Happy New Year 2011!

Further to the attached email, please complete the Doodle poll to set a time 
this week for the Rec 6 CWG 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 2-11.

We have scheduled this call for 90 minutes – this may need to be extended by 30 
minutes, subject to the progress made during the call.

http://doodle.com/7ydep9rxyp77359u

This Doodle poll closes on Wednesday 5th January at 2200 UTC – the date and 
time of the call will be announced shortly thereafter.

Thank you.
Kind regards,
Gisella
----------------------------
Gisella Gruber-White
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Email: 
gisella.gruber-white@xxxxxxxxx<applewebdata://0A9CDCAE-FD73-4641-AD85-92DB8E77ED67/gisella.gruber-white@xxxxxxxxx>
Tel: +44 7545 334 360
Skype ID: gisella.gw

--- Begin Message ---

• To: soac-mapo <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: [soac-mapo] Update- Rec6 Action Item URGENT input from CWG is required by January 7th 2011.
• From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 15:10:28 -0800

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:

 1.  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.
 2.  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.
 3.  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.
 4.  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.
 5.  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.
 6.  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.
 7.  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?<https://community.icann.org/pages/createpage.action?spaceKey=atlarge&encodedTitle=Tk9URSAtLSBjb25maXJtIC0tIGRvIHdlIHdhbnQgdG8gZG8gYSBzdHJhdyBwb2xsPyDCoERvIHdlIHdhbnQgdG8gdHJ5IHRvIHJlY29tbWVuZCBzdWJzdGl0dXRlIGxhbmd1YWdlPw==&linkCreation=true&fromPageId=7209321>.
  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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>]
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 5:36 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>; 
heather.dryden@xxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>'
Cc: 'heather.dryden@xxxxxxxx<mailto:heather.dryden@xxxxxxxx>'; 
'langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 2:06 PM
To: Margie Milam; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; 
Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>]
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:39 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; 
Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx<mailto: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
__________

--- End Message ---