[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] Community Objection

[Edwards, Nathaniel]

I agree with the overall sentiment, but some communities may believe that there are no PICs that would adequately protect them. It may be better to leave the remedy as is and let a prevailing community decide whether it wants to file a community application for the gTLD in the next round or continue to fight the same battle over and over. Or I suppose the prevailing objector could be given a choice between remedies at the outset. I.e., opposer requests that (1) the application be denied; or (2) the applicant be required to implement the following PICs if it is granted the TLD:...


Nathaniel W. Edwards
Counsel
719.386.3016 office

602.748.2530 fax
nedwards at lrrc.com
_____________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
90 South Cascade Avenue
Suite 1100
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
lrrc.com





-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 10:29 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] Community Objection


Although Community Objections is not yet in WT3 schedule although part of the WT3 roadmap, I would like to record a suggestion I made during the Full WG F2F meeting in Hyderabad so when time comes, if I don't have availability to discuss it, the idea is still out there.

In the 2012-round, the possible gain to affected communities was to make that application not move forward. This has shown some issues:
- Communities, or the IO on their behalf,  needed to file against all applicants for that string
- Some applicants tried, and sometimes succeeded, leveraging this type of objection against competitors either in the contention set or in the market.
- Even for the communities that prevailed, they will need to refile over and over again in subsequent procedures


So, the idea that came about was for such objections to have a different winning proposition: PICs. So if the community of Animal rights activists filled an objection on .animal, they would need to say what commitments they want from registries for .animal to have. The panel would evaluate their standing, their cause of action and the PICs they want, deciding if none, some or all of their asks are applicable. If they win, such PICs will become mandatory PICs for such TLD, no matter which applicant wins the contention set. They would also be persistent in that such PICs would still apply after registry transitions, or to new procedures if that contract ends with no transition.

Another possible use case would be a professional association from a country while applicant is a professional association from other country. Let's say Card Dealers of America applied to .carddealers ; French association of Card Dealers could file a community objection to have a PIC saying that .carddealers registry can't restrict registration based on being from the US, since there are card dealers in all countries that gambling is allowed.

This could have a positive effect in removing this objection type from contention set battles and actually upholding communities best interests regarding usage of a TLD they care for.



Rubens






_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3


________________________________

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.