<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <p>I reviewed the ICANN bylaws and found nothing on a specific role
      with regard to new TLD applications. Nothing prevents ALAC from
      providing advice wrt any application. But if they want to raise a
      formal objection within their mandate and standing, ALAC should be
      treated like anyone else.</p>
    <p>The request for funding based on the number of applications
      received is frankly ridiculous as it presumes that a certain
      percentage of these are going to be objectionable no matter what.
      <br>
    </p>
    <p>The role of ALAC in this could be to provide advice to the
      indepentent objector, who would then have to consider the advice
      and either reject it (don't file) or accept it and file the
      objection based on on its own mandate. There is no need for a
      second independent objector that would have to be paid for by all
      applicants and ultimately the internet community at large...  <br>
    </p>
    <p>Volker Greimann<br>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 22.10.2019 um 11:26 schrieb Justine
      Chew:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAHndqHYS48vx4C2Q_YyU=PeGswBxREeWXn4AR3bcBiEkD+Jzrg@mail.gmail.com">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div class="gmail_default"
          style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">
          <div class="gmail_default">Aha?<br>
            <br>
            The ALAC is not "just like anyone else"; it is one of
            several specific Advisory Committees provided for in ICANN's
            Bylaws and one of 2 Advisory Committees which were funded to
            file objections in the last round. This funding to file
            objections is expected to continue in Subsequent Procedures
            and the ALAC submits that it ought to include reasonable
            funding to finance appeals as a matter of due process. <br>
             </div>
          <div>
            <div dir="ltr">
              <div dir="ltr">
                <div>
                  <div dir="ltr">
                    <div>
                      <div dir="ltr">
                        <div>
                          <div class="gmail_default">Justine</div>
                          -----</div>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
        <br>
      </div>
      <br>
      <div class="gmail_quote">
        <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 at 16:32,
          Volker Greimann <<a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net"
            moz-do-not-send="true">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>>
          wrote:<br>
        </div>
        <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
          0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
          <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
            <p>Aha.</p>
            <p>Many organizations that might conceivably want or feel
              entitled to launch an objection are underfunded. Should
              ICANN therefore fund any organization without money 
              "commensurate with the number of applications received"? <br>
            </p>
            <p>Unless ALAC is granted a special objector role, funding
              should not be contemplated. ALAC can voice the concerns of
              the internet users without raising a formal objection. Or
              it could raise the money required from its constituents or
              others that share its concerns. Just like anyone else. <br>
            </p>
            <div>Am 22.10.2019 um 07:53 schrieb Justine Chew:<br>
            </div>
            <blockquote type="cite">
              <div dir="ltr">
                <div class="gmail_default"
                  style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">I
                  now wish to relay the ALAC's response on the matter of
                  its ability to file both Limited Public Interest
                  Objections and Community Objections <span
                    style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">in
                    Subsequent Procedures, as well as appeals against
                    any DRSP decisions dismissing the ALAC's filed
                    Objections. The response is as follows:<br>
                    <br>
                  </span></div>
              </div>
              <blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px
                40px;border:none;padding:0px">
                <div>
                  <div class="gmail_default"
                    style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">The
                    ALAC has no funding ability beyond that supplied by
                    ICANN. It is not feasible for the ALAC to raise
                    funds to finance an appeal (or objection) or to bear
                    costs under a “loser pays” model if its appeal is
                    unsuccessful.</div>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <div class="gmail_default"
                    style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
                  </div>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <div class="gmail_default"
                    style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Any
                    withholding of ICANN funding for the ALAC to file
                    objections and/or appeals would be tantamount to
                    denying ALAC the ability to fulfill its duty under
                    the Bylaws as the primary organisational
                    constituency for the voice and concerns of the
                    individual Internet user.  </div>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <div class="gmail_default"
                    style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
                  </div>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <div class="gmail_default"
                    style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">As
                    to any contemplated limits to the number of appeals
                    or quantum of ICANN funding to ALAC in light of
                    ICANN budgetary constraints, the ALAC believes that
                    its ICANN funding must be commensurate with number
                    of applications received.</div>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <div class="gmail_default"
                    style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
                  </div>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <div class="gmail_default"
                    style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">The
                    question of standing for the ALAC to file an
                    objection and appeal is beyond the scope of the
                    Subsequent Procedures PDP WG. It is a question for
                    the ALAC to consider and the Dispute Resolution
                    Service Provider and Appeals Arbiter to determine in
                    respect of an objection and appeal, respectively.</div>
                </div>
              </blockquote>
            </blockquote>
            <div>-- <br>
              Volker A. Greimann</div>
          </div>
          _______________________________________________<br>
          Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br>
          <a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank"
            moz-do-not-send="true">Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
          <a
            href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg"
            rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a><br>
          _______________________________________________<br>
          By submitting your personal data, you consent to the
          processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing
          to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
          (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy"
            rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
          and the website Terms of Service (<a
            href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" rel="noreferrer"
            target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>).
          You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership
          status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting
          digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g.,
          for a vacation), and so on.</blockquote>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
      Volker A. Greimann<br>
      General Counsel and Policy Manager<br>
      <strong style="border-bottom: 3px solid #5C46B5">KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH</strong><br>
      <br>
      T: +49 6894 9396901<br>
      M: +49 6894 9396851<br>
      F: +49 6894 9396851<br>
      W: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.key-systems.net">www.key-systems.net</a><br>
      <br>
      Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of
      Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835<br>
      CEO: Alexander Siffrin<br>
      <br>
      Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered
      in England and Wales with company number 8576358.</div>
  </body>
</html>