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+W...> . 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 ----