[council] FW: Business Constituency Comment on Rec6

[Stéphane Van Gelder]

Thanks very much for sending those comments in Steve. Please also extend my thanks to the BC for responding to the Council's call for comments.

May I take this opportunity to encourage other groups to comment in time for our next Council meeting, on Jan 13? I would expect that one item of particular interest might be fees, and specifically the question of costs for GAC or ALAC objections (see item 3 of the Rec6 CWG's draft response).

Thanks,

Stéphane


Le 9 janv. 2011 à 22:38, Glen de Saint Géry a écrit :

>  
>  
> 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
> processes.
>  
> 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:
>  
> 3.1.2.3 ".. an applied-for gTLD string may be considered contrary to
> generally accepted legal norms..."
> the BC believes that term "generally accepted" should be specifically
> defined.
>  
> 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
> Objectors.
>  
>  
> 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
> objections.
> 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
> www.bizconst.org
>  
>  
> <BC on Final App Guidebook.pdf>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20110110/82e2182f/attachment.html>