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>