ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[soac-mapo] FW: Business Constituency Comment on Rec6

  • To: "soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx" <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [soac-mapo] FW: Business Constituency Comment on Rec6
  • From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:47:00 -0800

Dear All,

For your information, the Business Constituency has submitted its comments 
(attached) regarding Rec6 6 to the GNSO Council.

Best Regards,


Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 2:39 PM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] FW: Business Constituency Comment on Rec6

Forwarded From: Steve DelBianco]

This comment is in response to GNSO Council's 08-Dec-2010 request for
constituency comments on recommendations of the cross-community working
group (CWG) regarding Council's Recommendation 6 (the "morality and public
order" section of the draft AGB)

The Business Constituency (BC) addressed this issue in its Dec-2010
comments on the proposed final AGB.
(see page 7 of BC comments posted at
http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-guide/msg00026.html and attached here)

Relevant points from that submission are repeated here in response to
Council's request.

In our Dec-2010 comments, the BC explains our rationale for concerns over
the proposed objection process:
The BC is concerned that confusion and controversy may result from
subjective and undefined aspects of the Limited Public Interest and
Community objections.

The BC understands that ICANN may need to outsource objection and
evaluation tasks during the new gTLD application process. But a decision
to outsource services does not enable ICANN to escape accountability for
decisions made by outsourcing vendors. ICANN's Board must be the final
resolution body for disputes that arise during evaluation and objection

The challenges of managing both internal and outsourced objection
processes underlies the BC's recommendation for an initial batch of
fewer than 500 applications:

"The first batch should be limited to significantly fewer than 500
applications, in order to test the operational readiness of newly
designed application processing and objection / contention systems."
(see page 3 of our Dec-2010 comments, attached)
The BC also called for more definitions and specifics in the Guidebook
section on Limited Public Interest objections: ".. an applied-for gTLD string may be considered contrary to
generally accepted legal norms..."
the BC believes that term "generally accepted" should be specifically

The objector must prove substantial opposition within the community it has
identified itself as representing.
the BC believes the term "substantial opposition" should be
specifically defined.

3.1.5  Independent Objector A formal objection to a gTLD application may
also be filed by the Independent Objector (IO). The IO does not act on
behalf of any particular persons or entities, but acts solely in the best
interests of the public who use the global Internet.
The BC believes the Guidebook should include a description of the
methodology ICANN will use to solicit interest from independent

The IO will be selected by ICANN, through an open and transparent process,
and retained as an independent consultant.
the BC recommends adding specific decision criteria regarding the
selection and supervision of the Independent Objector.

Anyone may file a [Limited Public Interest Objection]. Due to the
inclusive standing base, however, objectors are subject to a ³quick look²
procedure designed to identify and eliminate frivolous and/or abusive
the BC believes that open-ended guidelines may create a perpetual loop
of opposition. The BC recommends a more specific regime.

Steve DelBianco
Vice chair for policy coordination
ICANN Business Constituency

Attachment: BC on Final App Guidebook.pdf
Description: BC on Final App Guidebook.pdf

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy