August 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 29 August
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 29, 2017

Aug. 29, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 29 August. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The meeting recording and chat transcript are available at: https://community.icann.org/x/DBLfAw[community.icann.org]. The documents referenced on the call are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included below. Kind regards, Emily -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items and Discussion Notes: 29 August 2017 1. Plenary Update: -- Last night the meeting went through the work tracks and reviewed where they were, meetings coming up, and topics covered. -- Status of work track 5. -- Flexibility and predictability framework -- several scenarios were discussed. Asked to continue the discussions online. -- Continue to go through the overarching themes in following meetings. 2. Independent Objector – Unanswered Questions: -- Discussed previously the idea of an appeals mechanism. -- Remind everyone -- we will be reviewing the subject of accountability mechanisms. Will circle back to the independent objector issue. Make sure we have covered an accountability mechanism. Will not take more time on that right now. -- Question: Have we made the decision to keep the IO? Answer: The ask at the last call was to discuss an appeals mechanism for the IO. Will come back to the question of whether there will be an IO. -- Looking for volunteers to help drive this discussion offline. First, with regard to whether there should be an IO: If we look at our notes there was a sense that perhaps the community is mature enough now that we might not need an IO. The community may be able to look out for itself. -- Now in discussions we have been talking about having an IO and how. Graphic from staff on IO and how it might work. -- Proposal: Rather than a single IO there could be an IO standing panel. -- Budget: Staff has done some work to extract the information. -- Get a sense of where we want to go and how we want to tackle this. Do we want to try to reach consensus first on yes/no on IO? Or are we going to talk about issues of fixing it? Discussion: -- The 20-million-dollar figure is an enormous amount of money. Per staff the actual spend was around $2.5 million. Even that amount for two wins is high. -- It is inappropriate to look at it just as bang for the buck. Need to go back to what was the original purpose. Not just for people aware of possible objections. Changes in IRP may make it easier now. In terms of making an objection it was also to cover the concerns of people who may not have been paying attention. While there is a need to do it better -- having one person may not be the best idea, but finding a way to do it is important. Need to find a new way to solve the problem of what about those things that are objectionable to some groups who may not be paying attention. We can make things more predictable by not having objections at all, but not sure we are going for that level of predictability -- need is still there to try not to cause harm. -- Problem with the concept of the IO, not just the cost. The concept there can be this body that stands apart from everyone else and can decide what is in the best interest for the world. IO is not responsible for what happens at ICANN, which is a design flaw. Need to make sure that we build into our processes mechanisms to make sure that those who are included can be included. -- Favor a mechanism for objections based on the global public interest. Sensitive to the fact that money shouldn't be wasted. Shouldn't be just one IO that just files objections to justifies the salary. It is not a good structure. Also not good that the Board should decide if a particular application is in the public interest. That gets into content regulation by the Board. Concern about access and ability to file an objection. It is extremely expensive to file an objection. Suggest a different structure of a standing IO panel, similar to IRT panel. Then if there is a conflict of interest you have to be able to disqualify that person right away. -- We may need to make adjustments -- maybe a panel would fix a few of the problems, maybe not. Need to put substance to the "global public interest". It is an expensive process and there is no way to do it unless we have a process similar to this. Strongly support keeping the process even if we have to fix it. -- It is a false dichotomy that either we have an IO on one hand and the only other choice is to foist this off to the Board. There are other objection mechanisms, some of which could be tweeked to work well. -- We can do it other ways, but money seems to be an issue. For example, we could set up a fund for those who don't have the resources -- but that could be gamed and could cost more money. Need to funnel the funds into a source that we can guide and not make it too open ended. -- Winning 2 out of 17 is not a good record and need to look at why that was the case. -- Why is a panel better? The reason would be that if one person makes that determination and there are no gates on that process then that is problematic. The word "independent" is important. If there is a panel of 7 and 4 vote that there is a global public interest and an objection should be filed then there is a gate. Agree that there is a financial barrier. -- Question: Has there been a review of the IO's performance and how it went? How we got 2 for 17? If there was a system to get 2 for 4 instead of 2 for 17. That would be interesting to explore. -- Some support for a panel; could be an arbitral panel of 3. Or a panel that controls a fund. -- Shouldn't lose sight of how the global public interest is represented. Either look at the flaws with the previous process or take a different tack. -- The problem may also have been with the objection evaluation panels and the criteria they used and not in the IO. >From the chat: Paul McGrady: How much was spent on the I.O. for his two victories in the last round? Mike Rodenbaugh: I recall his budget was more than $20m Steve Chan: Budget was a @24.8 million but actual spend was around $2.5 million Robin Gross: It makes less sense to talk about fixing details if we are going to nix the concept. Steve Chan: Budget was a @24.8 million but actual spend was around $2.5 million Karen Day: my bad all! Only 2. 8 was spent Mike Rodenbaugh: ah, thanks Steve, big difference.... Jim Prendergast: $2.5 million for IO budgte and untold milliosn spent by other applicants who prevailed Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): it cannot be 20 MM Jim Prendergast: and the money spent by applicants denefing themselves against IO objections. I dont think we have that figure and probably impossible to get Greg Shatan: Why was this a good idea in the first place? Jim Prendergast: To Annes point on Board objecting - several of them were conflicted in 2012 and may be in next process so it would only be a subset of the board. I dont think that is desirable Jamie Baxter | dotgay: +1 Anne .. it seems apparent that the Board neither wants to make those decisions, or has the tools to make them when when it comes to having a clear understanding/definition of "public interest" avri doria: Robin, empowering the Board with the Global Public Interet objections is another mechinism for hadling them. But are we sure we want to hand that task to them, and to have the Board judging each application for its GPI? Greg Shatan: I'm trying to recall who thought it was a good idea and why.... Robin Gross: Last time I checked, the board is already there. avri doria: Policy set the goal of handling these issues, AGB decided on how. avri doria: only in exception processing at the end. not in terms of being th first address for such appeals. Mike Rodenbaugh: I don't see how a panel of IOs solves any of the problems we had with just one IO Robin Gross: I tend to agree, Mike, as I see the concept flawed. avri doria: and rember all the IO could so was file an objection. not make the determination. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: +1 Alan Jim Prendergast: agree with Alan on his points about kicking this to the Board Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Because it's not one person determining Global Public Interest - for example, it is a panel of 7 experts and they vote - 4 out of 7 means the Limited Public Interest Objection is filed. Mike Rodenbaugh: my biggest problem with IO was that, even if he decided not to object (after lengthy deliberations with one of my clients), or if he later lost his objection, that did not stop anyone else from objecting on the same basis (incl. governments). So it greatly increased costs to applicants, with no benefit to anyone Robin Gross: The IO process seems to be expanding the types of objections we initalially created by this "in the global public interest" test. That is dangerous. Greg Shatan: In 15 out of 17 cases, the IO's judgment about when a GPI filing was warranted were found to be wrong. If the IO was a baseball pitcher, he'd be cut from the team.... avri doria: (personal) Greg, that is a reason to find a better mechanism, not to eliminate pitchers. Jim Prendergast: what would be the soure of those funds? Jim Prendergast: would it be an application tax like we had for the ICANN legal defense fund? avri doria: (personal) Jim, it is part of the expense of processing applications justly. Robin Gross: Wouldn't a better solution be to build this concern into our own processes, rather than outsource "globlal public interest" to an outside body? "Independent" also means no responsibility or accountability on some level. Paul McGrady: @Anne - but those "real money" events happened to the 15 winners, brought on by a defective I.O. mechanism. Jim Prendergast: @avri - I dont disagree but in other WTs we have people arguing to cut the application feees as low as possible to spur demand but this seems like somehting that would add to the cost. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Paul - I agree. That is why we have to have "gates" that put a check on unlimited "Limited Public Interest" Objections Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Unfortunately I think the qualification for the fund would take forever. avri doria: (personal) the problem may also have been with the objection evaluation panels and the criteria they used and not in the IO Meeting with/questions for the IO: -- Staff is looking into whether the IO can join one of our meetings, but we should formulate questions ahead of time. There are questions that need to be explored before we can come to a consensus. What is the best way to get those questions together? Discussion: -- This review doesn't have to be that hard. Everything was documented on the IO's web site. Start on our own to develop the right questions. See: IO website: https://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/home/home/ -- Make sure the questions are not already answered on the web site or in his final activity report. Helpful to identify the questions and then we can look through the material to see if the questions are answered. Staff will continue to see if we can make him available. Action: Start pulling together a list of basic questions that have been raised during the meetings. Get that to the list so people can add questions they have. >From the chat: Paul McGrady: What could possibly be confidential about the activities of a person who is paid to represent the public interest? avri doria: I agree with Paul on that, there should not be much secrecy needed. avri doria: i think it would be valuable Greg Shatan: Good idea. avri doria: but that is why i suggested it a few meetings back. Paul McGrady: Valusable so long as we all stay really nice. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Yes - always best to understand the challenges Greg Shatan: The site is still up. Mike Rodenbaugh: IO website: https://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/home/home/ Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): There may be a difference as to need for Limited Public Interest Objection as opposed to Community Objection. 3. CC2 – Objections – Q 3.1.7 – 3.1.11 (see attached): 3.1.7 Do you believe that parties to disputes should be able to choose between panels and should the costs of objections reflect that choice? -- RySG, BRG, and Afilias recommended that parties should be able to jointly determine whether to use a 1- or 3-member panel. >From the chat: Mike Rodenbaugh: if both parties agree to 3, then fine; but otherwise 1 must be the default else cost would be at least double for 3 Jamie Baxter | dotgay: +1 Mike Karen Bernstein: +1 Mike Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Mike Robin Gross: me too avri doria: i am personally undeccided Karen Day: Also undecided. 3 people might give a greater outcome but cost could be a factor.

1 0

Recording, AC Chat & Attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Aug. 29, 2017

Aug. 29, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording (visual and audio) and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p6av0ejzxuy/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=6bd626c2308666a9…> https://participate.icann.org/p6av0ejzxuy/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org] ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Agenda Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/MQEhB> https://community.icann.org/x/MQEhB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 29 August 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=RNUDs8z6xPrQ69K6sbfIJzjZcV4Ei81LG19Qy7jDgLU&s=JzsrnKcQSLFYgLWKYngO7a2g85vGwKFG7zQ9o0688tQ&e= Karen Day:Hi all Karen Day:Anne - would you be able to speak today under item 4 to your email from yesterday? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):thanks Karen and terri joining now and yes Karen Day:Thanks, Anne! Greg Shatan:lol Jim Prendergast:tough to hear Robin Gross:very low gain Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Terri - sounds like Avri is in a cave. Need to dial out to her. Terri Agnew:much better Avri - thank you Paul McGrady:How much was spent on the I.O. for his two victories in the last round? Mike Rodenbaugh:I recall his budget was more than $20m Robin Gross:It makes less sense to talk about fixing details if we are going to nix the concept. Jim Prendergast:wow Jim Prendergast:$20 mil Steve Chan:Budget was a @24.8 million but actual spend was around $2.5 million Karen Day:my bad all! Only 2. 8 was spent Mike Rodenbaugh:ah, thanks Steve, big difference.... Karen Day:2.5 - seems I can't type any better than I can remember :( Jim Prendergast:$2.5 million for IO budgte and untold milliosn spent by other applicants who prevailed Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):it cannot be 20 MM Jim Prendergast:and the money spent by applicants denefing themselves against IO objections. I dont think we have that figure and probably impossible to get Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):"not addicted" - LOL Avri! Paul McGrady:+1 Robin. Paul McGrady:@Jim - good point. Greg Shatan:Why was this a good idea in the first place? Jim Prendergast:To Annes point on Board objecting - several of them were conflicted in 2012 and may be in next process so it would only be a subset of the board. I dont think that is desirable Jamie Baxter | dotgay:+1 Anne .. it seems apparent that the Board neither wants to make those decisions, or has the tools to make them when when it comes to having a clear understanding/definition of "public interest" Paul McGrady:@Greg, it might neverave been a good idea, but now that we know that it definetly isn't, it seems irresponsible to keep it. avri doria:Robin, empowering the Board with the Global Public Interet objections is another mechinism for hadling them. But are we sure we want to hand that task to them, and to have the Board judging each application for its GPI? Greg Shatan:I'm trying to recall who thought it was a good idea and why.... Robin Gross:Last time I checked, the board is already there. avri doria:Policy set the goal of handling these issues, AGB decided on how. avri doria:only in exception processing at the end. not in terms of being th first address for such appeals. Mike Rodenbaugh:I don't see how a panel of IOs solves any of the problems we had with just one IO Robin Gross:I tend to agree, Mike, as I see the concept flawed. avri doria:and rember all the IO could so was file an objection. not make the determination. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:+1 Alan Jim Prendergast:agree with Alan on his points about kicking this to the Board Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Because it's not one person determining Global Public Interest - for example, it is a panel of 7 experts and they vote - 4 out of 7 means the Limited Public Interest Objection is filed. Mike Rodenbaugh:my biggest problem with IO was that, even if he decided not to object (after lengthy deliberations with one of my clients), or if he later lost his objection, that did not stop anyone else from objecting on the same basis (incl. governments). So it greatly increased costs to applicants, with no benefit to anyone Robin Gross:The IO process seems to be expanding the types of objections we initalially created by this "in the global public interest" test. That is dangerous. Greg Shatan:In 15 out of 17 cases, the IO's judgment about when a GPI filing was warranted were found to be wrong. If the IO was a baseball pitcher, he'd be cut from the team.... avri doria:(personal) Greg, that is a reason to find a better mechanism, not to eliminate pitchers. Jim Prendergast:what would be the soure of those funds? Jim Prendergast:would it be an application tax like we had for the ICANN legal defense fund? avri doria:(personal) Jim, it is part of the expense of processing applications justly. Robin Gross:Wouldn't a better solution be to build this concern into our own processes, rather than outsource "globlal public interest" to an outside body? "Independent" also means no responsibility or accountability on some level. Greg Shatan:My rates are very reasonable. Paul McGrady:@Anne - but those "real money" events happened to the 15 winners, brought on by a defective I.O. mechanism. Jim Prendergast:@avri - I dont disagree but in other WTs we have people arguing to cut the application feees as low as possible to spur demand but this seems like somehting that would add to the cost. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Paul - I agree. That is why we have to have "gates" that put a check on unlimited "Limited Public Interest" Objections Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Unfortunately I think the qualification for the fund would take forever. avri doria:(personal) the problem may also have been with the objection evaluation panels and the criteria they used and not in the IO Paul McGrady:What could possibly be confidential about the activities of a person who is paid to represent the public interest? avri doria:I agree with Paul on that, there should not be much secrecy needed. avri doria:i think it would be valuable Greg Shatan:Good idea. avri doria:but that is why i siggested it a few meetings back. Paul McGrady:Valusable so long as we all stay really nice. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Yes - always best to understand the challenges Greg Shatan:The site is still up. Mike Rodenbaugh:IO website: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.independent-2Dobje… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.independent-2Dobje…> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=RNUDs8z6xPrQ69K6sbfIJzjZcV4Ei81LG19Qy7jDgLU&s=lfUbErHyCVeLE-5XYIW_uiFGB59cNHRuSRiYk17AZG0&e= Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):There may be a difference as to need for Limited Public Interest Objection as opposed to Community Objection. Greg Shatan:Looking at Alain Pellet's bio, he is certainly a distinguished jurist, with significant experience in international law, multiple cases before the ICJ, Chevalier of the Legion d'Honneur, etc. Greg Shatan:But whether this was the right experience is open to review.... Mike Rodenbaugh:if both parties agree to 3, then fine; but otherwise 1 must be the default else cost would be at least double for 3 Jamie Baxter | dotgay:+1 Mike Karen Bernstein:+1 Mike Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree with Mike Robin Gross:me too avri doria:i am personally undeccided Jim Prendergast:I agree with Mike Terri Agnew:next call: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 12 September 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Robin Gross:Thanks Karen and all. Bye! Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Karen! Greg Shatan:Bye

1 0

WT3 - Agenda & Materials for Tuesday, August 29th @ 15:00 UTC
by Karen Day Aug. 28, 2017

Aug. 28, 2017

Dear All, In preparation for our next call, Tuesday, August 29, 2017 @ 15:00 UTC, please see below for our proposed agenda. 1.Welcome & Review of Agenda 2. Updates to SOI 3. Plenary Update 4. Independent Objector – Unanswered Questions 5. CC2 – Objections – Q 3.1.7 – 3.1.11 (see attached) 6. AOB Hope you have all had a good weekend and I look forward to talking to you on Tuesday. Best, Karen ____________________________ Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP Brand Protection & Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ Mobile: + 1 919-599-4356 ▪ karen.day(a)sas.com SAS Institute Inc.▪ SAS Campus Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.sas.com [S285-sas100K-TPTK40K-vert]

2 1

Recording, AC Chat & Attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Aug. 15, 2017

Aug. 15, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording (visual and audio) and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8ppftmix4t/<https://participate.icann.org/p8ppftmix4t/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=92ef84797cbc0a40…> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/FgEhB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 15 August 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 20:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Robin Gross:what is the beeping on the line? Julie Bisland:Emily's line, i've muted it Robin Gross:Thank you! Emily Barabas:sorry, my line dropped Julie Bisland:but seems she's having some AC issues Julie Bisland:I apologize for not getting it sooner. :( Robin Gross:No worries. Thanks. Phil Buckingham:Good explanation , Jon. Q Do you think going foward there should be some forewarning that an applicant will apply for CPE ( assuming of course there CPE for a Round 2 ! ) Jamie Baxter | dotgay:the current community objections do not have a component of mitigating harm, so unless that changes the community objection process serves a very important role Anne AIkman-Scalese (IPC):Sorry to be late - previous meeting in our office ran overtime Phil Buckingham:thanks Jon Emily Barabas:The full report is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.independent-2Dobje… Robin Gross:The fourth ground is “A determination that an applied-for gTLD string would be contrary to specific principles of international law as reflected in relevant international instruments of law.” Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Staff - can you post the LPIO grounds in the chat so we see the 3 that IO recommends be rejected? Emily Barabas:The other three grounds: Incitement to or promotion of violent lawless action;• Incitement to or promotion of discrimination based upon race, color, gender,ethnicity, religion or national origin, or other similar types of discrimination thatviolate generally accepted legal norms recognized under principles of internationallaw;• Incitement to or promotion of child pornography or other sexual abuse of children;or Emily Barabas:From the IO report: "I believe that the first three grounds should be removed from this list since I have notedthat it can mislead people who tend to think that these three grounds are the only reasonswhich could trigger a Limited Public Interest Objection. The fourth ground is very generaland includes in any case the three other grounds. Thus, for the sake of clarity, I am of theposition that only the fourth ground should be retained in a future version of theAGB. " Paul McGrady:Big dollars + low success rate = ???? Emily Barabas:see IO cases and outcomes on pages 27-29 Steve Chan:@Paul, we'll try to get a better understanding of the IO budget and how it was utilized Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I thought I crunched all these numbers in Copenhagen . . . Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Do we have any independent verification that the IO's claim that LPIO grounds 1-3 are, in fact, covered by #4? Paul McGrady:@Steve - thanks. PP. 27-29 only sets forth his very high loss rate, not how many dollars were spent on his many losses Emily Barabas:@Paul, correct. We'll see if we can get more information on the other half of the equation. Paul McGrady:+1 Jon - with such a high loss rate, we need to (at a minimum) change the elements. Jon Nevett:+1 Kristina on last two points Anne AIkman-Scalese (IPC):@Paul and Jon - we need to have a gatekeeper on LPIO other than just the IO him or herself. Paul McGrady:+1 Kristina. Susan Payne:completely agree Kristina, it shoud be a preliminary determination Jon Nevett:agree as well and I like the Kristina show! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes early identification of any COI. is essential Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Jon: Thanks! Jim Prendergast:No harm in asking but I would agree - they wll run from anything that has potential liability. Anne AIkman-Scalese (IPC):+1 Paul Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):In case you're looking for some light reading, here's my May 2013 letter to ICANN on behalf of Patagonia regarding the IO's conflict of interest. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource… Jon Nevett:and who could appeal? Paul McGrady:Would the appeal be limited to the final decision (merits) or also include initial decisions (e.g. standing, IO conflicts)? Phil Buckingham:and the time limits Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):After all the hours spent on Accountability, I can't even imagine that we'd consider depriving applicants of the opportunity to use those mechanisms for IO objections. (Specifically not addressing appeals.) Anne AIkman-Scalese (IPC):@Kristina - great letter - we need to learn from history on this issue of conflict of interest. This has got tobe FIXED! Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Thanks, Anne! Paul McGrady:Can we put this issue back at the top of our list for the next call. Worthy of more than 4 minutes. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Has the Board taken any action on the IO's report? Specifically referred it to GNSO? Something else? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):+1 Paul Jamie Baxter | dotgay:without an appeals mechanism it seems that the expectation was that every panel or hired evaluators would get every detail correct on first attempt. Anne AIkman-Scalese (IPC):The issues arose due to too much discretion in the hands of the IO. Structure revisions in decision-making can address these issues so that they don't become issues no matter who has the assignment as IO. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Thanks, all! Julie Bisland:The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Jon Nevett:Thanks!! Steve Chan:Another outreach mechanism could be to formualte a set of questions that were unanswered by his report Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye ðŸ‘‹ for now.. we are making progress on this... thanks everyone. Anne AIkman-Scalese (IPC):Thank you Robin, staff, and everyone. Phil Buckingham:Great call , Robin

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 15 August
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 15, 2017

Aug. 15, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 15 August. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The meeting recording and chat transcript are available at: https://community.icann.org/x/DBLfAw[community.icann.org]. The document referenced on the call is attached and excerpts from the chat room are included below. Kind regards, Emily -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items and Discussion Notes: 15 August 2017 Actions: Independent Objector: 1. Staff will try to get a better understanding of the IO budget and how it was utilized. 2. Decide whether to invite the IO to a meeting. Notes: 1. Plenary Update: -- Full WG met on 07 August and discussed application submission method and predictability framework -- intersection with the framework this WG is working and the interplay with the implementation policy framework. These are topics relating to the drafting team on overarching topics. -- Work Track 5 Geographic Names at the Top Level: outreach to solicit leaders from the GAC, ALAC, ccNSO, and GNSO. Still in the process of gathering volunteers. Question: Is there a deadline by which names should be suggested? Response: Suggested nominees by 18 August, but no nominees received yet. -- Next meeting is 29 August. 2. Follow-up from last time: a. RySG comment on gaming and “two bites at the apple” - CPE & objections? -- Uncertainty concerning the RySG comment. Asked for someone from the RySG could join this call. -- The genesis of the comment was looking at the CPE and objection process. Some instances in the past round varied from the process. Two ways to knock out applicants. Didn't think that the same party would use both CPE and objection. Some examples where some used both processes, which provided inconsistent results. Comments suggests that if you are applicant go through CPE and if not an applicant go through the objection process -- don't use both processes. -- Question: It is unclear as to who has the right to do what if the applicant would have to choose one or the other. Are applicants required to respond to any objections that come in? Response: The thinking is that if you are a community applicant you go through the CPE track and you don't objection. If you aren't a community applicant then you are free to object. -- One thing that is important to go back to is the purpose of these processes. The purpose of the objection phase is to eliminate harm. It is important to note that that didn't always work out. Selecting CPE doesn't mean the community is going to achieve community status. Don't see how you can force the applicant to choose between the two. -- Also had comment that one of the problems with community is that it was an all or nothing endeavor. -- Question: Are the two elements/criteria the same? Response: No, they aren't. -- Question: Do you think going forward there should be some forewarning that an applicant will apply for CPE? Response: Yes, if after the deadline. b. Review of IO’s Final Activity Report of the Independent Objector: The full report is available here: https://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/home/final-activity-report/. The Summary Document is attached. -- On Limited Public Interest -- only the 4th ground should be retained. The fourth ground is “A determination that an applied-for gTLD string would be contrary to specific principles of international law as reflected in relevant international instruments of law.” -- Question: One of the specific LPIO was a human rights objection to an application. It may have been a subset of the 4th ground. Other 3 Grounds: 1) Incitement to or promotion of violent lawless action; 2) Incitement to or promotion of discrimination based upon race, color, gender, ethnicity, religion or national origin, or other similar types of discrimination that violate generally accepted legal norms recognized under principles of international law; 3) Incitement to or promotion of child pornography or other sexual abuse of children; or... >From the IO report: "I believe that the first three grounds should be removed from this list since I have noted that it can mislead people who tend to think that these three grounds are the only reasons which could trigger a Limited Public Interest Objection. The fourth ground is very general and includes in any case the three other grounds. Thus, for the sake of clarity, I am of the position that only the fourth ground should be retained in a future version of the AGB." -- See IO cases and outcomes on pages 27-29 (loss rate). -- Can we determine how much money was spent on the IO? Might need to be a gate keeper. -- Might want to look at .hospital. IO Recommendations (pages 54-56): #4: Giving IO discretionary power in deciding if an application is "highly objectionable"... -- Strongly object to the recommendation, but there should be clearer guidelines as to what does and doesn't constitute a highly objectionable application. #5: IO be explicitly granted access to other objections in "extraordinary circumstances" within a reasonable time. -- The IO took the position that it could be an extraordinary circumstance if another objection was filed against the same string on the same ground -- but object that the IO would have access to other objections or get additional time. #6: Include an Initial Notice Procedure: -- Regular applicants would seem to be left out of the process. -- If there is such a procedure there must be clearly designated criteria for the IO's determination. Don't leave it up to the IO's discretion. -- Example of how much discretion this IO thought he had. #7: How to handle conflicts of interest: -- Applicant would have to go through the whole process before the conflict of interest is delineated. Who decides there is a conflict of interest is very murky. Propose that in the event that an applicant thinks there is a conflict of interest if they could meet criteria that would be showing on its face. For the applicant raising a conflict of interest there should be some reimbursement of application fees up until that point. -- Seems like it is another gate keeping issue. It should be determined very early on. Not sure who determines whether there is a conflict of interest. Need a mechanism for that. -- Wouldn't there also be a possibility that the dispute resolution panel could weigh in on conflicts of interest? -- This is an area that is significantly broken. -- There could be an alternative that would work more like mediators or arbitrators with a group of individuals. #8: Appeals following a determination upon an IO's objection -- reconsideration process is not suitable. -- This is something we should spend time thinking about the possible appeals mechanism and who could appeal. -- The notion of appeals is not limited to the objection by the IO. -- Distinction: A lot of these recommendations from the IO are more broad/general than just related to the IO. -- Elements to the discussion: 1) principle of an IO; 2) rules, framework, implementation are correct; 3) execution of this IO (results for the money). Have the Work Track decide where they want to draw their attention. >From the chat: Emily Barabas: see IO cases and outcomes on pages 27-29 Steve Chan: @Paul, we'll try to get a better understanding of the IO budget and how it was utilized Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I thought I crunched all these numbers in Copenhagen . . . Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Do we have any independent verification that the IO's claim that LPIO grounds 1-3 are, in fact, covered by #4? Paul McGrady: @Steve - thanks. PP. 27-29 only sets forth his very high loss rate, not how many dollars were spent on his many losses Paul McGrady: +1 Jon - with such a high loss rate, we need to (at a minimum) change the elements. Jon Nevett: +1 Kristina on last two points Anne AIkman-Scalese (IPC): @Paul and Jon - we need to have a gatekeeper on LPIO other than just the IO him or herself. Paul McGrady: +1 Kristina. Susan Payne: completely agree Kristina, it shoud be a preliminary determination Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes early identification of any COI. is essential Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): In case you're looking for some light reading, here's my May 2013 letter to ICANN on behalf of Patagonia regarding the IO's conflict of interest. https://www.icann.org/resources/correspondence/rosette-to-jeffrey-2013-05-1… Jon Nevett: and who could appeal? Paul McGrady: Would the appeal be limited to the final decision (merits) or also include initial decisions (e.g. standing, IO conflicts)? Phil Buckingham: and the time limits Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): After all the hours spent on Accountability, I can't even imagine that we'd consider depriving applicants of the opportunity to use those mechanisms for IO objections. (Specifically not addressing appeals.) Anne AIkman-Scalese (IPC): @Kristina - great letter - we need to learn from history on this issue of conflict of interest. This has got tobe FIXED! Paul McGrady: Can we put this issue back at the top of our list for the next call. Worthy of more than 4 minutes. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Has the Board taken any action on the IO's report? Specifically referred it to GNSO? Something else? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): +1 Paul Jamie Baxter | dotgay: without an appeals mechanism it seems that the expectation was that every panel or hired evaluators would get every detail correct on first attempt. Anne AIkman-Scalese (IPC): The issues arose due to too much discretion in the hands of the IO. Structure revisions in decision-making can address these issues so that they don't become issues no matter who has the assignment as IO.

1 0

August 15th 20:00 UTC Discussion Agenda: "Gaming", Independent Objector, and GAC Advice (Objections continued)
by Robin Gross Aug. 14, 2017

Aug. 14, 2017

Dear WT3 Members: Our next WT3 meeting is scheduled for Tuesday August 15th at 20:00 UTC (60 minutes). The meeting’s discussion agenda and specific CC2 questions on which we'll focus are below. Please review the attached Final Activity Report from the Independent Objector in advance of our call and initial responses to the CC2 questions in the attached “themes” document, which we’ll continue going through, starting with 3.1.8. Thank you. Best, Robin Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. SOI Updates 3. Plenary Update 4. Follow-up from last time a. RySG comment on gaming and “two bites at the apple” - CPE & objections? b. Review of IO’s Final Activity Report of the Independent Objector (attached) 5. CC2 Response Reviews on “Objections" Continued - Questions 3.1.8 - 3.1.11 (see below) 6. AOB On agenda item 5, we will continue our review of the CC2 responses and in particular to the following questions: 3.1.8. - Is clearer guidance needed in regards to consolidation of objections? Please explain. 3.1.9 - Many community members have highlighted the high costs of objections. Do you believe that the costs of objections created a negative impact on their usage? If so, do you have suggestions for improving this issue? Are there issues beyond cost that might impact access, by various parties, to objections? 3.1.10 - Do you feel that GAC Early Warnings were helpful in identifying potential concerns with applications? Do you have suggestions on how to mitigate concerns identified in GAC Early Warnings? 3.1.11. - What improvements and clarifications should be made to GAC Advice procedures? What mitigation mechanisms are needed to respond to GAC Advice? How can timelines be made more precise?

1 0

Recording, AC Chat & Attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 01 Augusts 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Aug. 1, 2017

Aug. 1, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording (visual and audio) and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 3 - String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 01 August 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p9rzmb9xk7g/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=a734cab52dd0f74b 6487850c643c955ffb306ed2d345023772faa3091aafe84d> https://participate.icann.org/p9rzmb9xk7g/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Agenda Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/twAhB> https://community.icann.org/x/twAhB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 01 August 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 3 - String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 01 August 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_t wAhB <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ twAhB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=taqsTungLzfujYRllqnFQSUsXCHXbuHvh5hHV_8W00k &s=gaN5ZSI4gaIccaFpEcTE_vdCnTrb3PTySAsqcHcmLb4&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=taqsTungLzfujYRllqnFQSUsXCHXbuHvh5hHV_8W00k&s=ga N5ZSI4gaIccaFpEcTE_vdCnTrb3PTySAsqcHcmLb4&e= Jeff Neuman:hearing a bunch of crackling noise Jeff Neuman:Anne, that may be coming from you Jeff Neuman:Is Robin on? Jeff Neuman:Just give us one more minute and we will start Jeff Neuman:sure Michael Flemming:yes Jamie Baxter | dotgay:I was curious if we will be returning to 3.1.5 since it was not covered on the last call Terri Agnew:New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group will take place on Monday, 07 August 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Alan Greenberg:Not particularly relevant to this group, but I have been selected as Chair (Interim) of the RDS-WHOIS2-RT. Emily Barabas:The full group call will be on 29 August at 3:00 UTC Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Congrats Alan - good to know. Emily Barabas:(Tuesday in UTC, but Monday night for those calling in from the Americas) avri doria:no addition Emily Barabas:document is now unsynced so everyone can zoom as needed Emily Barabas:we are on page 7 Emily Barabas:Excerpts are on display in the central pod. Full text of the comments are available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads heets_d_1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp0gZra7U0_edit <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread sheets_d_1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp0gZra7U0_edit&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3 PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H 4xR2EBk&m=taqsTungLzfujYRllqnFQSUsXCHXbuHvh5hHV_8W00k&s=jLCBZwF85LNAScKDfApS myc0c_vBtg8G-4t2WImR9sA&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=taqsTungLzfujYRllqnFQSUsXCHXbuHvh5hHV_8W00k&s=jL CBZwF85LNAScKDfApSmyc0c_vBtg8G-4t2WImR9sA&e= avri doria:so yes dotgay was forced to respond to someone who was ultimately denied standing. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: I support the idea of a screening based on standing but it should not take forever to do - should be done quickly in order to provide certainty for Applicants and potential Objectors. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):makes sense to me Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree with Alan it is difficult to detremine standing without both sides filing pleadings. Alan Greenberg:I strongly support a preliminary determination (which will catch most who do not have standing). Alan Greenberg:Better said by Anne. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed! be very useful Alan Greenberg:To be clear, what I was sayingwas that there should be a preliminary determination on standing, and if it fails, the objection is dead. Only if preliminary standing is granted does the complain prodeed. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:I could concur with that Alan. Basic investigation to confirm that the objector represents a legitimate organization that is capable of achieving standing is key. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:but does it mean that no other entity can object to the community application if they select CPE? avri doria:and for a community objector, is this just the applicant being barred or any of the community who supprted the application? Alan Greenberg:Note that 2/19 is 10%. Alan Greenberg:I presume the IO was not paid on a per-objection basis. That would be a direct conflict of interest. Trang Nguyen:The IO was not paid on a per-objection basis. avri doria:the degree to which any of the money spent on application processing and objection resolution were good expenditures is a large subject of its own. Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, the AGB says "The IO may consider public comment when making an independent assessment whether an objection is warranted. The IO will have access to application comments received during the comment period." avri doria:i.e once we start the evaluation of function versus expenditure, this is not the only one that should be subject to such analysis.i.e once we start the evaluation of function versus expenditure, this is not the only one that should be subject to such analysis. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:i think it would be hard to conduct a full 360 on the effectiveness of the IO. we will never have any idea how many gTLD ideas or applications were thwarted by the meer existance of an IO. Greg Shatan:We need a Bodhisattva. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Underlying philoshical basis was the Limited Public Interest Objection. If poorly executed, it needs to be fixed. Otherwise, we are getting rid of that Objection. Greg Shatan:@Jamie, do you have any reason to believe that any applications were thwarted/unfiled due to the existence of the IO? Trang Nguyen:The AGB also says "In light of the public interest goal noted above, the IO shall not object to an application unless at least one comment in opposition to the application is made in the public sphere." So, you are correct, Jeff. avri doria:can we invite IO for a discussion? Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Greg, without the IO role to intervene on issues of morality or human rights with string applciations, what would stop people from applying from them and who would intervene to prevent some of the ideas mentioned on this call? avri doria:the discussion of his understanding might help in revising the description of the function Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree wtih Jamie. If the IO is the wrong tool or needs more support to determine Limited Public Interest, we should fix that. What if the ICANN Board appointed a non-conflicted subcommittee? Susan Payne:IO's final activity report may be of interest https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.independent-2Dobjec tor-2Dnewgtlds.org_home_final-2Dactivity-2Dreport_ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.independent-2Dobje ctor-2Dnewgtlds.org_home_final-2Dactivity-2Dreport_&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrc rwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk &m=taqsTungLzfujYRllqnFQSUsXCHXbuHvh5hHV_8W00k&s=0In10JVVDYy6Fne0MVMtRawwuju ZlbsMtE-22UlyT8s&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=taqsTungLzfujYRllqnFQSUsXCHXbuHvh5hHV_8W00k&s=0I n10JVVDYy6Fne0MVMtRawwujuZlbsMtE-22UlyT8s&e= Terri Agnew:next call: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 3 - String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone... good discussion... bye for now then Terri Agnew:@Jeff, apology noted for next call Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Jeff et al. Robin Gross:Thanks Jeff for jumpin in! Bye!

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 01 August
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 1, 2017

Aug. 1, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 01 August. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The meeting recording and chat transcript are available at: https://community.icann.org/x/DBLfAw[community.icann.org]. The document referenced on the call is attached and excerpts from the chat room are included below. Kind regards, Emily -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items and Discussion Notes: 01 August 2017 Action Items: 3.1.5: Leadership to reach out to RySG and Afilias to join the next call to discuss their comments. 3.1.6: 1) Research how the IO was paid; 2) Make a formal request to invite the Independent Objector to a meeting for discussion. Notes: 1. Plenary Update -- We have a call on Monday, 07 August at 20:00 UTC. The second call will be on 29 August at 3:00 UTC. -- On the last call we talked about rounds versus first come first served. -- Next we will continue that discussion as well as predictability. -- Soon we will send invites to the SOs and ACs asking them to appoint a leader for the new Work Track 5 on Geographic Names. Then we will send a call for participants. 2. CC2 Response Reviews -- Objections Continued Questions 3.1.6-3.1.11 Excerpts are on display in the central pod. Full text of the comments are available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp… 3.1.5 - Are you aware of any instances where any parties attempted to "game" the Objection procedures in the 2012 round? (page 7) -- dotgay LLC provided evidence of gaming. -- dotgay LLC, RySG, and Afilias made suggestions to reduce the likelihood of gaming. -- RySG and Afilias: "No individual entity should be able to participate in both an objection and CPE for the same string." Discussion: -- (dotgay) Wanted to point out and via the example. For some reason in the community objections the process of determining whether someone was able to file an objection was not done until the objection was moved to the panelists. Very concerning glitch that allows for anyone, even without standing, to start a proceeding and force a community application to respond. There is not process for those concerns to be highlighted and dealt with. Standing should be determined before a community is pulled into an objection. -- Are there examples where had there been processes in place someone would not have had to respond? The objections are confidential. It was very clear in the case of dotgay had standing been required it was have saved a lot of time and money. -- Would there be any harm in requiring a standing check upfront? Dotgay -- can't think of any harm as it relates to our situation. -- It seems like requiring an evaluation of standing prior to a response seems like a good approach. -- (dotgay) the objection referenced was one that never made it to the panelists. The objection that did make it to the panelists didn't pass standing. The community applicant has to pay a $5,000 fee just to respond to the objection. If they don't get standing there is no way the community application can be successful. -- Wondering whether there may be cases where the decision that the group does not have standing is at least partially based on the contents of the response. Then you would want to evaluation to be preliminary. -- (dotgay) That is a good point. It is important to make it clear that standing has no connection to the complaint itself. Standing can be determined without needing to know the complaint. -- Worry that the review no matter how specific it is might miss something that the response catches. -- It makes a lot of sense to make a screening based on standing but if you don't have the opportunity of both sides to plead on standing you don't have the full picture. -- (dotgay) If we go back and look at the standing requirements they look at the time of the existence of the organization, the composition, etc. Look at the criteria to determine standing. We had been told by ICANN that if the standing isn't achieved then the impact of the complaint itself has no bearing on anything else down the road. Example: Our panelist said he was not going to hold up dotlgbt from proceeding because the gay community was going to get .gay. We were told that something from one determination was not useable in another. -- Not sure agree that an entity should not be able to participate in both an objection and CPE for the same string. Also raises more questions: if a community application decides to choose CPE does that mean no one can file an objection for the application? Implication is one or the other, if applied for CPE forego right to object to another application. This needs more discussion. ACTION: Leadership to reach out to RySG and Afilias to join the next call. >From the chat room: avri doria: so yes dotgay was forced to respond to someone who was ultimately denied standing. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: I support the idea of a screening based on standing but it should not take forever to do - should be done quickly in order to provide certainty for Applicants and potential Objectors. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): makes sense to me Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Alan it is difficult to detremine standing without both sides filing pleadings. Alan Greenberg: I strongly support a preliminary determination (which will catch most who do not have standing). Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed! be very useful Alan Greenberg: To be clear, what I was sayingwas that there should be a preliminary determination on standing, and if it fails, the objection is dead. Only if preliminary standing is granted does the complain prodeed. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: I could concur with that Alan. Basic investigation to confirm that the objector represents a legitimate organization that is capable of achieving standing is key. Alan Greenberg: Better said by Anne. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: but does it mean that no other entity can object to the community application if they select CPE? avri doria: and for a community objector, is this just the applicant being barred or any of the community who supprted the application? 3.1.6 - Do you believe that the use of an Independent Objector (IO) is warranted in future application processes? -- Nominet and ALAC expressed that the use of an IO is warranted in future application processes -- The BC stated that the use of an IO is not warranted in future application processes. -- RySG, BRG, and Afilias raised concerns about the use of the IO in the 2012 round and suggested changes for future application processes. Discussion: -- Statistics quoted by the BC are interesting and should be considered. The fact that this is an objection process it will implicitly prove not beneficial for some. -- Standing with respect to the IO: Curious who would have standing to file for a limited public interest objection. Who would determine who would have standing? If there is not IO who file the limited public interest objection? -- The IO was created to pass the requirements of standing on morality, public order, limited public interest. If we get rid of the IO who would have standing -- this needs to be considered. -- Perception was that the IO went beyond the morality, public order, limited public interest. Considered things such as .health for example. Was not created for that. For the IO needs to be a better quick look process or some other check to make sure the scope is quite limited. -- Do we know how many objections the IO was successful in and how many total dollars the applicants paid him? BC filed comments that there were 19 objections and only two successful. We can probably come up with that figure. At some point we need to do an efficiency analysis. ACTION: Research how the IO was paid. -- The question of whether the IO made good decisions is a different question from whether there should be someone with standing to file a limited public interest objection. Might be better to focus on how the IO or some other body should be required to document support for a valid limited public interest objection so that the community agrees that it is qualified. -- There are separate but related questions around the IO. Look at the 17 objections that did not prevail and why. Look at whether the IO went beyond its remit. Is there a relationship between where the IO went beyond its remit and the objections that were lost. -- The IO was only supposed to file an objection if comments were raised in the initial public comment period. It was designed to look at public comments received then to be a voice of those. -- The IO had a fixed budget that included a salary. Compensation structure needs to be looked at. -- Re: who will do this if the IO doesn't do it: Should look at whether the IO served is essential purpose. It is an odd construct that holds all the public interests. Need to look at whether there is a different mechanism. -- There is another thing to check. People were able to come to the IO with issues to consider. It is a place where those concerns can funnel in. If we are going to have these kinds of concerns there does need to be a way to funnel it into the system. -- If we are going to start looking at function, expenditure, and value for money this is not the only one we need to subject to this analysis. Not sure if it is in our scope to do this. ACTION: Make a formal request to invite the IO to a meeting for discussion. >From the chat: Alan Greenberg: Note that 2/19 is 10%. Alan Greenberg: I presume the IO was not paid on a per-objection basis. That would be a direct conflict of interest. Trang Nguyen: The IO was not paid on a per-objection basis. avri doria: the degree to which any of the money spent on application processing and objection resolution were good expenditures is a large subject of its own. Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, the AGB says "The IO may consider public comment when making an independent assessment whether an objection is warranted. The IO will have access to application comments received during the comment period." avri doria: i.e once we start the evaluation of function versus expenditure, this is not the only one that should be subject to such analysis.i.e once we start the evaluation of function versus expenditure, this is not the only one that should be subject to such analysis. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: i think it would be hard to conduct a full 360 on the effectiveness of the IO. we will never have any idea how many gTLD ideas or applications were thwarted by the meer existance of an IO. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Underlying philoshical basis was the Limited Public Interest Objection. If poorly executed, it needs to be fixed. Otherwise, we are getting rid of that Objection. Greg Shatan: @Jamie, do you have any reason to believe that any applications were thwarted/unfiled due to the existence of the IO? Trang Nguyen: The AGB also says "In light of the public interest goal noted above, the IO shall not object to an application unless at least one comment in opposition to the application is made in the public sphere." So, you are correct, Jeff. avri doria: can we invite IO for a discussion? Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Greg, without the IO role to intervene on issues of morality or human rights with string applciations, what would stop people from applying from them and who would intervene to prevent some of the ideas mentioned on this call? avri doria: the discussion of his understanding might help in revising the description of the function Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree wtih Jamie. If the IO is the wrong tool or needs more support to determine Limited Public Interest, we should fix that. What if the ICANN Board appointed a non-conflicted subcommittee? Susan Payne: IO's final activity report may be of interest https://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/home/final-activity-report/ 3.1.7 Do you believe that parties to disputes should be able to choose between 1- and 3- member panels and should the costs of objections reflect that choice? -- RySG, BRG, and Afilias recommended that parties should be able jointly determine whether to use a 1- or 3-member panel.

1 0