<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 6 9 7 2 5 8 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@MS Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 6 9 7 2 5 8 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle27
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle28
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle29
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle30
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle31
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle32
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle33
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle34
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle35
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle36
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle37
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle38
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle39
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle40
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle41
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle43
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle44
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle45
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle46
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle47
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle48
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle49
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle50
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle51
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle52
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle53
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle54
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle55
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle56
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle57
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle58
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle59
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle60
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">My comments on this Monday call are as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">1. CONFUSION BETWEEN APPEALS AND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. Actions by ICANN staff (such as evaluations) should not be subject to appeal. This undercuts the Accountability work already done and creates more
delay; Appeals should be limited to third party decisions. Otherwise, you will get double filings – appeal and Request for Reconsideration. The only remedy would be to make appeal a prerequisite to Request for Reconsideration. In this regard, I share
the concern that we are creating a layer of delay. EXAMPLE: Would the award of .WEB be an appeal or a Request for Reconsideration or both? Would appeal be a prerequisite to a Request for Reconsideration? (Those opposed say (1) ICANN got it wrong and (2)
ICANN violated missions and processes.) Alternatively, we can say that if Request for Reconsideration applies, then appeal does not. Or we simply decide it’s okay to file both an appeal and a Request for Reconsideration at the same time – but what about
inconsistent decisions? Which of these alternatives for distinguishing the remedies is the WG recommending?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">2. FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT NEEDED. When the Working Group finally agrees on a matrix showing the various appeal provisions (and corresponding flow charts), these should definitely be put out for public comment.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">3. FURTHER LIVE DISCUSSION OF CHARTS. I agree with those who noted that limiting further live discussion to the list is inadequate. There should be live discussion time devoted to the revisions being made by
staff and the WG member comments that will be entered in the Google sheets do. Here should also be live discussion of the flow charts to be drafted. Further live discussion should occur at the top of the agenda on the October 10 call (or latter if materials
are not ready for that call.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Anne<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Julie Hedlund<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, October 7, 2019 9:38 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 07 October 2019<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">[EXTERNAL]</span></strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear Working Group members,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Please see below the notes from the meeting on 07 October 2019.
<b><i>These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat,</i></b> which will be posted at:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-10-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP">
https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-10-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP</a>.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Julie<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Notes and Action Items:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Actions:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Accountability Mechanisms -- Evaluation Procedures:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Background Screening:</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ACTION ITEM 1: Add a row in the chart where the applicant can appeal and for contention sets and exact match, for WG comment.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt">CPE:</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ACTION ITEM 2: Someone has to pay the brunt of the cost -- who paid last time for .gay? Was that the service provider? Ask ICANN Org.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ACTION ITEM 3: Add Applicant Support Program as new line 14.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Notes:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">2. Review of summary documents:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">a. Accountability Mechanisms -- See:
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-2D3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-2DKNrPs_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=fzAGthS59M6Ja4eWRH-tXjhHXW0h74Ii50a2U7XH5Ow&s=jpXSa64TPR6HkgQjBvjd6X3sp9CKdveWxSSM1pMRqrk&e=">
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-KNrPs/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]</a>, page 19 -- Who will be the arbiter of such an appeal?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">See also: concepts related to the Limited New gTLD Appeals Processes:<a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8fIU0IOwu8/edit#gid=0">https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8fIU0IOwu8/edit#gid=0</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- This is an aid to help everyone. It is not a final document. WG members can make comments during the call and afterwards.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Evaluation Procedures:</span></i><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- Add line 13 -- CPE<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Background Screening:</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- Should there be a panel of experts? For string similarity they were farmed out to do the background screen.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- In this case we don’t know if there could be some kind of standing panel.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- Not sure how prescriptive the WG should be. But the Individual Evaluator who made the decision probably shouldn’t be the one that reviews the appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- For background screening, Applicant for identical string should also have a right to appeal. There was no mechanism for this in the last round and ICANN ignored objections when someone passed who should
not have passed under the clear language of the AGB. If contention sets are done before screening then anyone in a contention set should have the right to appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- Doesn’t that open every single applicant up to an additional layer of delay by contestants?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- Does it mean that an applicant has to pay for bad work of the screeners of the first wave?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"MS Gothic"">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"MS Gothic"">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Evaluators should be INDIVIDUALS with recognized personal expertise.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- If it is loser pays that addresses concerns about frivolous appeals.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- Real life example: CPE that had to be done a second time for .gay. In that case .gay didn’t pay, not sure who did.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- How would a member of the public have access to the private portions of the application?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"MS Gothic"">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt">(How would a
private party challenge that application?)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- Not all background information is private<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- We’re talking about background screening. It seems like clear parameters (felony, x number of UDRP losses, etc) should be established so it is not subjective.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- Appeal would be on one of the publicly known data points.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- This is a concern for .brands, but not just .brands.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ACTION: Add a row in the chart where the applicant can appeal and for contention sets and exact match.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt">CPE:</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- Someone has to pay the brunt of the cost -- who paid last time for .gay? Was that the service provider? Ask ICANN Org.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ACTION: Add Applicant Support Program as new line 14.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Objections:</span></i><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt">String Confusion Objection</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt">:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- Question: What’s the difference between the appeals that are allowed for string similarity? Answer: The string similarity evaluation as the way it was in 2012 was a strictly visual evaluation. That was
a pass/fail. If the application failed the evaluation then it was thrown out (if similar to another string). If similar to another application then it was thrown into a contention set. The string confusion is a broader analysis, looking at other factors
other than just visual. It’s between the applicant and an existing TLD objector or another applicant objector. It’s an appellate process if the existing objector believes that the evaluator got it wrong. In 2012 if it was decided that a string was in a
contention set there was not way for an applicant to appeal being put in a contention set as there were no grounds for objection.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- When .unicorn and .unicom where put in the same contention set there was no appeal for that or objection.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- In the case shown in the matrix, .unicorn or .unicom could appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- Doesn't this mean that contention sets need to be done very early so that any contention set folks can use the string similarity objectioner string non-similarity objection? Yes.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Legal Rights Objection</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt">:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- Questions: 1) Weren’t we trying to come up with narrowly tailored appeals? 2) how much consideration has been given to the 15 days? Answer: For this charter whatever grounds we decide on for Legal Rights
Objections are used, and we are just talking about appeals. We haven’t decided if there should a de novo review or where something is clearly erroneous where the panel made a mistake. Still need to decide the burden of proof/standard. Also need to decide
what the timeline must be, 15 days is just an example/placeholder. Could a be notice of appeal in 10 days and a brief within 20 days.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Limited Public Interest Objection</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt">:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- Included ALAC because their fees are covered by ICANN.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- On the last call we talked about options for applicants. On the last call some people did not agree that the Independent Objector should have a right to an appeal due to costs. Did the Work Track discussing
this issue provide any guidance? Did not think there was enough support to get rid of the IO and didn’t think there would be anyone else who would have the will to file an appeal. WT3 decided to keep the IO but there were no discussions on appeals. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- Question: Do we want ICANN and Contracted Parties to pay for the IO to be able to appeal a decision? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- Plus a remote possibility for extension of time under special circumstances.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- If the IO fails is there another objection that can be used? Depends on whether there are mechanisms under the Bylaws, also the GAC could file advice, and any third party that filed the initial objection
could appeal, but who pays the costs?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- IO should have the same rights of appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- If appeals are designed to counter panelist mistakes then it does appear to discriminate against IO objections</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"MS Gothic"">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt">.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- Add back in that the IO can appeal under user pays (which would be ICANN).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- ALAC has no funding ability beyond that supplied by ICANN.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- Still there that whether it is a team of IOs -- we said that there should be multiple IOs. We use it in the singular, but it could be a team. If there is a team, then there would not have to be an appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- But what if the IO team made a mistake?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- In the previous discussion there were no objections to ALAC making an appeal, but there were to ICANN funding it. That makes no sense because there is no ALAC as such without ICANN. ALAC will provide
a statement.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- Talked about budgets for IOs -- if they have the budget to go to appeal they IOs should be able to take that into account. Budget should be scaled to applications.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Community Objection</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt">:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- Should increase the number of days to file -- 15-20 days for notice of appeal, and 45 days to file the appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- Plus a remote possibility for extension of time under special circumstances.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Conflict of Interest of Panelist</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt">:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- Question: In the Chamber of Commerce you can challenge an arbitrator as soon as you know. If the issue has already been heard we don’t want to encourage anyone to wait? Answer: They should go through
the normal conflict process, and then if they disagree with that decision then they could appeal it. It is appealing the decision of the entity who made the decision on conflicts.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- What about 15 days from when the appealing party has knowledge of the conflict. Conflicts aren't always known up front.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"MS Gothic"">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-- Interlocatory means before a decision is made in the case.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<br>
<hr>
<font face="Arial" color="Gray" size="1"><br>
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.
<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>