[CPWG] New gTLD SubPro IR section 2.8.1 Objections

[Justine Chew]

Dear colleagues,

All available inputs to date to section 2.8.1 Objections have now been
posted to the *designated wiki workspace*
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=88573813> for
feedback.

Justine
----


On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 at 20:19, Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> I am providing an update, ahead of the CPWG call later today, on inputs to
> the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Initial Report (IR) call for comments.
>
> For those attending the call later, this is agenda item 3g Objections
> <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/2018-08-29+Consolidated+Policy+Working+Group+Call>
> .
>
> For starters, I do not know if consensus has been established for
> At-Large/ALAC to comment on section 2.8.1 Objections of the IR. However I
> flagged this section about 2 CPWG calls ago because, being somewhat
> familiar with the IR, I knew *there were questions relating to ALAC in
> this section which I suggest ALAC should respond to*.
>
> So, while working towards completing my inputs to section 2.8.1 Objections
> of the IR, I wanted to draw your attention to the inputs submitted by Alan
> Greenberg and myself thus far.  And this is quite a long section I might
> add.
>
> These can be found at (my) googledoc (*link here
> <https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rlGb86PXT50tYN33WHtwi94trFpoAoB6r63O_v6ATn0>*).
> Please scroll down the left table of contents menu and click on 2.8.1
> Objections.
>
> Questions in this section 2.8.1 include:
>
>    - Q 2.8.1.e.10  Whether ICANN should continue to fund objections filed
>    by ALAC? And if yes, should any limits be placed on such funding and if so,
>    what limits?
>    - Q 2.8.1.e.1 et al  Role of GAC Advice
>    - Q 2.8.1.e.4 et al Role of Independent Objector
>    - Q 2.8.1.e.13 et al Community Objections (input pending)
>    - Q 2.8.1.e.15 Can a Community Objection be resolved by applying a
>    mandatory PIC? (input pending)
>
>
> I invite you to add to or rebut posted inputs. In particular, I wanted to
> ask if any of you were involved in the ALAC Objection procedures (and
> attempted objection filing) for the 2012 round, and if you were to please
> provide comments on what weaknesses we would like to address in respect of
> the Objection procedure for ALAC.
>
> (I will find some time to post the inputs on the designated wiki asap)
>
> Regards,
>
> Justine
> ----
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180830/c9e0b635/attachment.html>