All, In preparation for our WT3 call tomorrow, Tuesday, 12 December 2017 @ 15:00 UTC, please see below for our proposed discussion agenda. We will conclude discussion of CC2 on community and also get into CC2 on objections. The related documents attached attached to this email. I hope you will join the discussion. Thank you. Best, Robin Discussion Agenda 1. Welcome & Review of Agenda 2. Updates to SOI 3. Plenary Update 5. Review of Work Plan for WT3 Through March 2018 (attached) 6. Conclude Review of CC2 on “Community” Applications (below & attached) 7. Review of CC2 on “Objections” (below & attached) 8. AOB 5. Conclude Review of “communities” in CC2 3.3.4 - Were the rights of communities (e.g., freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and principle of non-discrimination) infringed by the New gTLD Program? Please provide specific examples. 3.3.5 - Besides CPE, are there other aspects of the New gTLD Program related to communities that should be considered in a more holistic fashion? For instance, in the 2012 round, the claim to support a community is largely only relevant when resolving string contention. Do you think community applications should be structured and/or evaluated differently than other applications? 6. Review of CC2 on “Objections” 3.1.1 - Do you think that the policy recommendations (Recommendations 2, 3, 6, and 20) require any modifications? If so, what would you suggest? 3.1.2 - Do you believe that those recommendations (which led to the establishment of the String Confusion, Legal Rights, Limited Public Interest, and Community Objections grounds) were implemented effectively and in the spirit of the original policy recommendations? If no, please provide examples. 3.1.3 - Do you believe there were any issues with standing requirements as defined in the Applicant 3.1.4 - Do you believe there is evidence of decisions made by objection dispute panels that were inconsistent with other similar objections, the original policy recommendations, and/or the AGB? Please explain. 3.1.5 - Are you aware of any instances where any party or parties attempted to ‘game’ the Objection procedures in the 2012 round? If so, please provide examples and any evidence you may have available. 3.1.6 - Do you believe that the use of an Independent Objector (IO) is warranted in future application processes? If not, then why? If yes, then would you propose any restrictions or modifications be placed on the IO in future rounds? 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? 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?
