[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] Subsequent Procedures WT3 (Objections) Action Items

Fri Dec 16 13:18:21 UTC 2016

Jeff,

Who was the fifth applicant?

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:16 AM Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The following is my personal opinion and
>
> *not* as one of the co-chairs:
>
>
>
>
>
> Although the ALAC was provided with funding to file LPI objections and
> Community based objections, Alan argued on the call that the fact that they
> could not meet the standing requirements meant that the offer
>
> of funding was rendered essentially useless.  I agree with Alan in that
> respect, which is why I believe that such funding should NOT be made
> available for subsequent application windows or ALAC objections.  If the
> ALAC has any objections, just like the comments
>
> of any other SO or constituency, they can be addressed during the public
> comment periods.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At my previous employer, I was involved in defending Dot Health LLC
> against the ALAC complaint regarding .health (on Community Objection
> Grounds).  I observed on the ALAC mailing lists lobbying efforts from
> consultants
>
> that worked for the World Health Organization to get this objection
> filed.  The WHO was not able to convince its own organizational members to
> file the dispute, so it pursued this other avenue through the ALAC in order
> to hide behind the ALAC umbrella and
>
> receive funding from ICANN.  The ALAC also noticed that the Independent
> Objector filed on Public Interest grounds, so it therefore opted to pursue
> on Community Objection Grounds.  A copy of the decision is here:
>
>
> http://www.iccwbo.org/Data/Documents/Business-Services/Dispute-Resolution-Services/Expertise/ICANN-New-gTLD-Dispute-Resolution/EXP_504_ICANN_121_Expert-Determination/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The ALAC argued that because they speak for individual users of the
> Internet, and they were given funding from ICANN, the standing requirement
> shouldn’t apply to them.  They argued that because the .health string
>
> was being pursued by a commercial entity, there was no way that the
> commercial entity could be trusted to administer the registry.  They
> provided no back-up to their claims and wrote a brief based on personal
> opinions with no corroborating facts, expert opinions
>
> or other evidence of their claims.  The ALAC lost the complaint and ICANN
> was forced to pay the entire costs of the proceeding.  Although Dot Health
> LLC was able to recover some of its portion of the filing fee, it
> nonetheless spent tens of   thousands  of
>
> dollars in actual time and money to prepare the defense.  These dollars
> were never recouped.  At the moment I cannot find the ALAC complaint, but
> an article on it is here:
>
>
> http://www.internetnews.me/2013/02/16/alac-to-submit-objection-against-health/
>  The complaint was filed against 4 of the 5 applicants
>
> for .health at a filing fee near $200,000 a pop (costing ICANN close to a
> million dollars in filing fees alone).  ICANN itself had no role in
> reviewing the complaint, but was forced to bear the costs despite the fact
> that I believe if ICANN staff had a role
>
> in reviewing the complaint, they would have recommended that it not be
> filed without supporting evidence and without a basis to meet the standing
> requirements.
>
>
>
>
>
> Again this is my personal opinion.  Please treat as such.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Jeffrey J. Neuman*
>
>
> *Senior Vice President *|
>
> *Valideus USA*
>
> | *Com Laude USA*
>
>
> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
>
>
> Mclean, VA 22102, United States
>
>
> E:
>
> jeff.neuman at valideus.com
>
> or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
>
>
>
> T: +1.703.635.7514
>
>
> M: +1.202.549.5079
>
>
> @Jintlaw
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces at icann.org]
>
> *On Behalf Of *Karen Day
>
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 15, 2016 4:33 PM
>
>
> *To:* 'gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 at icann.org' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 at icann.org>
>
>
> *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] Subsequent Procedures WT3 (Objections)
> Action Items
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
>
>
> As we discussed during our last call we are going to make concerted effort
> to conduct some of our business via the list to try to avoid having to
> either lengthen or make more frequent
>
> our calls.  To that end, here are this week’s list of items that we need
> your feedback on – hopefully prior to our next scheduled call on 20DEC16.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 1.
>
> Recap and positioning on
>
> *Limited Public Interest Objections*:
>
>
> Is the content & function for purpose of policy stated in AGB 3.2.2.3 and
> 3.5.3 adequate as written or does the language need adjusting for
> clarification or correction?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> One issue that was raised on the call was that although the ALAC was given
> funding by ICANN to submit LPI objections they were denied standing in the
> case they did file.
>
> Does this ambiguity need to be eliminated by granting the ALAC standing or
> otherwise?
>
>
>
>
>
> A second issue that was raised was with regard to the use of the term
> “generally” in the definition (3.2.1) of LPI Objections.  “ The applied for
> gTLD string is contrary
>
> to *generally* accepted legal norms of morality and public order that are
> recognized under principals of international law.”   Can this be better
> written to define what is generally accepted without going so far as to
> require a principal to be “universally”
>
> accepted?
>
>
>
>
>
> If you feel that the language of these or other LPI related sections
> (other than those relating to fees or the IO which we will tackle later)
> needs clarification please specify
>
> for the groups consideration which section needs changing and make a
> proposal of how you feel it should be changed.   Again, silence will be
> taken that you ascribe to the ‘Neuman Rule’ that the language isn’t broken
> so we don’t need to fix it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2.
>
> Legal Rights Objections – AGB 3.2.2.2 and 3.5.2 / Principal G –
> Recommendation 3; See Wiki:
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.4.3+Objections
>
>
>
>
>
> Please review the following three documents (all found on the WT3 wiki
> page linked above to prepare for our discussions on this topic:
>
>
>
>
>
>             Objections Statistics with links to results for LRO cases.
>
>
>             WIPO Final Report on LRO
>
>
>
>             INTA Report – The ICANN LRO: Statistics and Takeaways
>
>
>
>
>
> As several of you were heavily involved in LROs from the 2012 round, it
> would be appreciated if you could share your experiences and suggestions
> for changes with the group
>
> via the list.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We look forward to hearing from you all soon.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Karen & Robin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 mailing list
>
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3/attachments/20161216/8a4ed08f/attachment-0001.html>