[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 07 October 2019

[Volker Greimann]

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.

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.

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...

Volker Greimann


Am 22.10.2019 um 11:26 schrieb Justine Chew:
> Aha?
>
> 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.
> Justine
> -----
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 at 16:32, Volker Greimann 
> <vgreimann at key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>> wrote:
>
>     Aha.
>
>     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"?
>
>     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.
>
>     Am 22.10.2019 um 07:53 schrieb Justine Chew:
>>     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 in Subsequent Procedures, as well as appeals
>>     against any DRSP decisions dismissing the ALAC's filed
>>     Objections. The response is as follows:
>>
>>         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.
>>
>>         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.
>>
>>         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.
>>
>>         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.
>>
>     -- 
>     Volker A. Greimann
>     _______________________________________________
>     Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
>     Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
>     (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of
>     Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.
>
-- 
Volker A. Greimann
General Counsel and Policy Manager
*KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH*

T: +49 6894 9396901
M: +49 6894 9396851
F: +49 6894 9396851
W: www.key-systems.net

Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of 
Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835
CEO: Alexander Siffrin

Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in 
England and Wales with company number 8576358.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20191022/a21a802a/attachment.html>