- Gnso-newgtld-wg - lists.icann.org

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 10 October 2019
by Emily Barabas Oct. 10, 2019

Oct. 10, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 10 October 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-10-10+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. On the call, it was suggested that guidelines used by CPE evaluators in the 2012 round should be incorporated into the Applicant Guidebook in subsequent procedures to improve predictability. Please see the notes below for details. As a follow up to the action item below, WG members are encouraged to review the 2012 CPE guidelines (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf) and raise on the mailing list if there are elements of the guidelines that they believe should not be incorporated into the AGB. Kind regards, Emily Notes and Action Items: Action Item: ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf Notes: 1. Welcome and Update to Statements of Interest * No SOI updates * Following up on Monday’s call, there is a revised chart available on appeals. Please add questions and comments to the draft for discussion on the email list. The chart is available at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8f… 2.a. Community Applications * Policy Goals are high-level and non-controversial. High-Level agreements so far: The Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) process must be more transparent and predictable; All evaluation procedures should be developed BEFORE the application process opens and made easily and readily available. * CCT-RT Recommendation 34 also suggests making improvements to address concerns raised about community applications before going forward with subsequent procedures. * Guidelines developed by the evaluators have not been discussed in depth by this group, other than the fact that they were made available late in the process. Key point raised in the public comments -- information contained in the guidelines needs to be available to applicants before applications are submitted. * Would it make sense to put some of the guidelines developed by the evaluators into the Applicant Guidebook? * Were there things in the guidelines, other than those detailed in the public comments, which were problematic? * ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf * By including guidelines in the AGB, there would be greater predictability for applicants and also greater clarity for future evaluators. * As a community applicant, there was a lot left open for interpretation in the 2012 AGB. As a result, an applicant’s interpretation of the guidebook may have been different from what the evaluators took away when they developed their guidelines. This resulted in a discrepancy that should not exist in subsequent procedures. * Review of suggestions in the public comments on improving transparency and predictability of the CPE process. * Review of comments on the definition of community. * One WG member disagrees with the way the EIU further restricted the definition of community in its guidelines, and suggests that this is not incorporated into the AGB going forward. Specifically, the EIU prioritized those that had a structured system to the community -- institutionalized or industry-related organizations would therefore be higher priority. * Suggestion - what if ICANN community members served as CPE panelists? They might better understand the definition of community from the ICANN perspective. ALAC advised in their public comments that members of grassroots organizations should serve as panelists. * Response - Different members of the ICANN community might understand the definition differently. ICANN never provided a clear definition. ICANN was relying on the scoring to delineate who should get priority rather than having a specific definition. * In selecting an entity to do the evaluations, ICANN was looking for expertise in doing this type of evaluation with independence, but as a result the evaluators may not have as much perspective on what ICANN was trying to achieve. Members of the ICANN community come in with their own biases. Could community members perhaps have some kind of advisory role instead? * The choice of evaluators may have impacted the way they approached the evaluation process. EIU has an economic focus. * Further review of suggestions for improving transparency and predictability of the CPE process in relation to the preliminary recommendation that the CPE process must be more transparent and predictable. * Conflict of interest provisions discussed previously should be applicable to all panelists, including those conducting CPE. This will address public comments that raised concerns about conflict of interest. * Comment - it is very important that one “naysayer” does not prevent an application from moving forward. There needs to be substantial opposition. * Suggestion for an additional WG Recommendation: If there was research relied on for the decision it should be cited and a link to the information provided. This is based on comments from Jaime Baxter, ALAC, and NCSG. * Some have commented that the costs of the process should be lower and that the process should be quicker. Suggestion for an implementation note stating ICANN staff should examine ways to make the process more efficient in terms of cost and timing. It may be difficult to be more detailed since ICANN Org is in the best position to evaluate how to increase efficiencies. * Comment - At this stage, ICANN Org should be better able to scope the task with a service provider and set clear expectations. The service provider should be responsible for remaining within budget. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: CPE evaluations should be completed in a shorter period of time. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: All evaluation procedures should be developed BEFORE the application process opens and made easily and readily available. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: The CPE process should include a process for evaluators to ask clarifying questions and where appropriate engage in a dialogue with the applicant [and providers of letters of opposition?] during the CPE process. ICANN org raised concerns about potential lobbying and lack of transparency that could result from this type of engagement. Perhaps panelists could ask clarifying questions in written format --- all materials would be publicly available. The opportunity would be equally available to all parties to ensure that the process is fair. * Preliminary Recommendation about dialogue between evaluators and relevant parties will be revised and included as a draft recommendation for the WG to consider further. * One WG member stated that community applicants can’t change their application, and that the opportunity for dialogue won’t change the application. It simply provides an opportunity for the applicant to illustrate key points so that the evaluators understand the application. There is little room for lobbying from this perspective. * Response -- by putting everything in writing, there is still this opportunity to clarify, and there is greater transparency. * Additional question - should the panelists be able to send clarification questions to those filing opposition letters? One member expressed support for this proposal. It may help to bring greater clarity to understanding the legitimacy of the opposition. It’s important to be clear that this is not about community-based objections but about opposition to community-based applications. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: Less restrictive word count for communities to engage in clarifying and providing information. ALAC expressed opposition to this recommendation. * It may be helpful to do some additional research on the existing word count restrictions, but there did not seem to be much support for increasing limits on word count. * Review of ALAC comment on providing access to experts to assist communities, particularly those from underserved regions in preparing applications in order to level the playing field. Suggestion to link this comment to the topic Applicant Support. * Review of comments on potentially providing alternative benefits if an applicant scored below the threshold. * Review of suggested changes to evaluation criteria or weight/scoring of criteria -- in particular, discussion of the comment that if opposition is expressed, it must be examined in the big picture and weighed against the volume of support. There should be a balance. * Discussion of suggestion in the public comments that there should be addition criteria around benefit to registrants -- perhaps there could be a form of “extra credit” granted to applicants that help or solve a problem inside a community. This could come in the form of bonus points. It might address some of the public comments from the Council of Europe, as well. * Clarification - this is already a requirement of the application, however it was not translated into the scoring criteria. It was incorporated into the contract as a commitment to the community. It would make sense for this to part of the scoring criteria. * Review of comments on whether there should continue to be preferential treatment for community applications -- there is general support for this concept. NCSG expressed concern about the definition of community. Registrars would like to eliminate the concept of community. * Review of comments on the Council of Europe report. * Review of comments in response to the question - to what extent should evaluators be able to deviate from pre-published guidance and guidelines? * Additional comment raised by a WG member -- any requirements about letters of support should be clear and transparent up front. * Review of additional considerations on selection of panelists and program goals raised by the Council of Europe. * Note that ICANN is currently examining the concept of Global Public Interest which may be responsive to the Council of Europe’s comments on this topic. 3. AOB * None.

1 0

Post call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Thursday, 10 October 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Oct. 10, 2019

Oct. 10, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 10 October 2019 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/m4oCBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 07 October 2019
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 8, 2019

Oct. 8, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 07 October 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-10-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Actions: Accountability Mechanisms -- Evaluation Procedures: Background Screening: ACTION ITEM 1: Add a row in the chart where the applicant can appeal and for contention sets and exact match, for WG comment. CPE: ACTION ITEM 2: Someone has to pay the brunt of the cost -- who paid last time for .gay? Was that the service provider? Ask ICANN Org. ACTION ITEM 3: Add Applicant Support Program as new line 14. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided 2. Review of summary documents: a. Accountability Mechanisms -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>, page 19 -- Who will be the arbiter of such an appeal? See also: concepts related to the Limited New gTLD Appeals Processes:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKV… -- This is an aid to help everyone. It is not a final document. WG members can make comments during the call and afterwards. Evaluation Procedures: -- Add line 13 -- CPE Background Screening: -- Should there be a panel of experts? For string similarity they were farmed out to do the background screen. -- In this case we don’t know if there could be some kind of standing panel. -- Not sure how prescriptive the WG should be. But the Individual Evaluator who made the decision probably shouldn’t be the one that reviews the appeal. -- For background screening, Applicant for identical string should also have a right to appeal. There was no mechanism for this in the last round and ICANN ignored objections when someone passed who should not have passed under the clear language of the AGB. If contention sets are done before screening then anyone in a contention set should have the right to appeal. -- Doesn’t that open every single applicant up to an additional layer of delay by contestants? -- Does it mean that an applicant has to pay for bad work of the screeners of the first wave?  --  Evaluators should be INDIVIDUALS with recognized personal expertise. -- If it is loser pays that addresses concerns about frivolous appeals. -- Real life example: CPE that had to be done a second time for .gay. In that case .gay didn’t pay, not sure who did. -- How would a member of the public have access to the private portions of the application? (How would a private party challenge that application?) -- Not all background information is private -- We’re talking about background screening. It seems like clear parameters (felony, x number of UDRP losses, etc) should be established so it is not subjective. -- Appeal would be on one of the publicly known data points. -- This is a concern for .brands, but not just .brands. ACTION: Add a row in the chart where the applicant can appeal and for contention sets and exact match. CPE: -- Someone has to pay the brunt of the cost -- who paid last time for .gay? Was that the service provider? Ask ICANN Org. ACTION: Add Applicant Support Program as new line 14. Objections: String Confusion Objection: -- Question: What’s the difference between the appeals that are allowed for string similarity? Answer: The string similarity evaluation as the way it was in 2012 was a strictly visual evaluation. That was a pass/fail. If the application failed the evaluation then it was thrown out (if similar to another string). If similar to another application then it was thrown into a contention set. The string confusion is a broader analysis, looking at other factors other than just visual. It’s between the applicant and an existing TLD objector or another applicant objector. It’s an appellate process if the existing objector believes that the evaluator got it wrong. In 2012 if it was decided that a string was in a contention set there was not way for an applicant to appeal being put in a contention set as there were no grounds for objection. -- When .unicorn and .unicom where put in the same contention set there was no appeal for that or objection. -- In the case shown in the matrix, .unicorn or .unicom could appeal. -- Doesn't this mean that contention sets need to be done very early so that any contention set folks can use the string similarity objectioner string non-similarity objection? Yes. Legal Rights Objection: -- Questions: 1) Weren’t we trying to come up with narrowly tailored appeals? 2) how much consideration has been given to the 15 days? Answer: For this charter whatever grounds we decide on for Legal Rights Objections are used, and we are just talking about appeals. We haven’t decided if there should a de novo review or where something is clearly erroneous where the panel made a mistake. Still need to decide the burden of proof/standard. Also need to decide what the timeline must be, 15 days is just an example/placeholder. Could a be notice of appeal in 10 days and a brief within 20 days. Limited Public Interest Objection: -- Included ALAC because their fees are covered by ICANN. -- On the last call we talked about options for applicants. On the last call some people did not agree that the Independent Objector should have a right to an appeal due to costs. Did the Work Track discussing this issue provide any guidance? Did not think there was enough support to get rid of the IO and didn’t think there would be anyone else who would have the will to file an appeal. WT3 decided to keep the IO but there were no discussions on appeals. -- Question: Do we want ICANN and Contracted Parties to pay for the IO to be able to appeal a decision? -- Plus a remote possibility for extension of time under special circumstances. -- If the IO fails is there another objection that can be used? Depends on whether there are mechanisms under the Bylaws, also the GAC could file advice, and any third party that filed the initial objection could appeal, but who pays the costs? -- IO should have the same rights of appeal. -- If appeals are designed to counter panelist mistakes then it does appear to discriminate against IO objections . -- Add back in that the IO can appeal under user pays (which would be ICANN). -- ALAC has no funding ability beyond that supplied by ICANN. -- Still there that whether it is a team of IOs -- we said that there should be multiple IOs. We use it in the singular, but it could be a team. If there is a team, then there would not have to be an appeal. -- But what if the IO team made a mistake? -- In the previous discussion there were no objections to ALAC making an appeal, but there were to ICANN funding it. That makes no sense because there is no ALAC as such without ICANN. ALAC will provide a statement. -- Talked about budgets for IOs -- if they have the budget to go to appeal they IOs should be able to take that into account. Budget should be scaled to applications. Community Objection: -- Should increase the number of days to file -- 15-20 days for notice of appeal, and 45 days to file the appeal. -- Plus a remote possibility for extension of time under special circumstances. Conflict of Interest of Panelist: -- Question: In the Chamber of Commerce you can challenge an arbitrator as soon as you know. If the issue has already been heard we don’t want to encourage anyone to wait? Answer: They should go through the normal conflict process, and then if they disagree with that decision then they could appeal it. It is appealing the decision of the entity who made the decision on conflicts. -- What about 15 days from when the appealing party has knowledge of the conflict. Conflicts aren't always known up front.  -- Interlocatory means before a decision is made in the case.

3 4

Post call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 07 October 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Oct. 7, 2019

Oct. 7, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 07 October 2019 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/mYoCBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 10 October 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 7, 2019

Oct. 7, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 10 October 2019 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary documents: 1. Community Applications – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15S_sUuP_gmKqba26tU9kYQ8mVF76W_3CSl4raxS…, page 2 2. Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15S_sUuP_gmKqba26tU9kYQ8mVF76W_3CSl4raxS…, page 8 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 07 October 2019
by Jamie Baxter Oct. 7, 2019

Oct. 7, 2019

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 07 October 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas Oct. 7, 2019

Oct. 7, 2019

Dear all, There is one additional document that we will reference on the call today, which fleshes out some concepts related to the Limited New gTLD Appeals Processes: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8f… Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, 3 October 2019 at 23:53 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 07 October 2019 at 15:00 UTC Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Monday 07 October 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary documents: 1. Accountability Mechanisms -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>, page 19 -- Who will be the arbiter of such an appeal? 2. Community Applications – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15S_sUuP_gmKqba26tU9kYQ8mVF76W_3CSl4raxS… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>, page 2 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Post call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call | Thursday, 03 October 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon Oct. 3, 2019

Oct. 3, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 03 October 2019 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/lYoCBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 07 October 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 3, 2019

Oct. 3, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Monday 07 October 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary documents: 1. Accountability Mechanisms -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K…, page 19 -- Who will be the arbiter of such an appeal? 2. Community Applications – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15S_sUuP_gmKqba26tU9kYQ8mVF76W_3CSl4raxS…, page 2 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 03 October 2019
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 3, 2019

Oct. 3, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 03 October 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-10-03+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Actions: Accountability Mechanisms: What are the types of actions or inactions that should be subject to this new limited appeals process? ACTION ITEM 1: Jeff will send a chart that begins to list some examples, such as if a panelist gets the facts wrong, misapplies the facts, takes an action in consistent with the AGB (or fails to take an action). Not looking at whether someone violated the Bylaws. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: None provided. 2. Review of summary documents: a. Accountability Mechanisms -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K…, page 17 What are the types of actions or inactions that should be subject to this new limited appeals process? -- Trying to distinguish between substance and procedure is not very helpful. Could be defined differently. More helpful to come up with examples that would be subject matter jurisdiction of an appeal. Noting elements in Jamie Baxter’s comments, ALAC, and most comments. -- Question: A list of examples would not be nonexclusive and illustrative only? Goal is to just have illustrative examples, we can’t promise that someone wouldn’t file something under the Bylaws that they shouldn’t be filing under the appeals. ACTION: Jeff will send a chart that begins to list some examples, such as if a panelist gets the facts wrong, misapplies the facts, takes an action in consistent with the AGB (or fails to take an action). Not looking at whether someone violated the Bylaws. -- If different panels come up with different answers on different occurrences is that grounds for appeal? -- What is out of scope for appeal? Probably easier to come up with a list of what is in scope. Could point to the Bylaws for what is out of scope. -- What about appeals that involved ICANN Org? In the AGB there is a void on how reconsideration requests (accountability mechanisms) are addressed when successful. If against staff or the Board that would fall under accountability mechanisms re: the Bylaws. But we can’t say that in cases where some of the activities are taken on by ICANN staff. -- Do think it makes sense that anything that could be objected to under the Bylaws should be objected to under the Bylaws, so we don’t get objections in two places. -- The standard for objections under the Bylaws is that Board or staff violated the Bylaws. -- If the just got it wrong, then it probably doesn’t fall under the Bylaws accountability mechanisms. -- We need the interlocutory appeals process so that actual relief can be granted before it is too late and not just have ICANN point back at the provider. -- We don't want to build an appeals process that erodes the accountability mechanisms. -- If we have a permanent new gTLD process, ICANN Org is considering bringing in house some of the tasks previously handled by third parties. -- Agree that only third party decisions should be subject to the appeals process. Otherwise there will be two actions filed, not one. ICANN would be nuts to in-house Objection proceedings. Lawyers will plead both the Accountability mechanisms and the appeal mechanisms. There will always be grey areas and ability to plead both mechanisms apply and it is wasteful. -- Doesn't it seem that ICANN doing Objections in-house would be subject to a further policy process. -- If we are talking about appeals we need to know what can be appealed. Bringing things in house and allowing them to go under accountability mechanisms under the Bylaws locks the appellee is locked out of it. Important to know when you can go to ICANN and when you can’t. Set some foundational principles. -- Very speculative to say we have to make policy based on what ICANN is discussing. There are good reasons for ICANN to keep Objections outside of the organization - namely independence of determinations. If ICANN is selecting panelists in Objection proceedings, those panelists, paid by ICANN, are subject to too much ICANN org influence.  -- ICANN should maintain distance from substantive decisions, even string confusion. These are too close to regulation of content and it's outside ICANN's mission. -- Bylaw accountability mechanisms deals mostly with process - whether process was violated, it doesn't deal with the subject matter because it does not have expertise. Which is the problem in many cases.  Who should have standing to file an appeal? Does this depend on the particular action or inaction? -- Example of parties: a) Applicant b) objection loser - Does this include Independent Objector? c) Someone in a contention set? d) ICANN Org? e) SOAC? f) public at-large? -- To clarify, on the last call when we talked about objections by ALAC being paid for, what we are talking about here is whether ICANN would pay for an appeal by the ALAC. -- On the standing issue, it sounds like everyone wants there to be a direct connection between the decision and a bad effect on the appealing party. In other words, no standing for anyone who just wants to harass an applicant.  -- Shouldn’t losing applicants for the same string in a CPE have standing to appeal? Should the other applicants have standing that the decision by the CPE evaluator was wrong. -- Having the ability to appeal certainly doesn’t guarantee a decision will be reversed, especially if frivolous appeals are filtered out  --  Logically, that makes sense, but if at all, they should ideally be joined in the same appeal to be heard by the same panel. What measures can be employed to ensure that frivolous appeals are not filed? What would be considered a frivolous appeal? -- General agreement at least for a quick look process to make sure the appeals aren’t frivolous. If there is an appeals process, how can we ensure that we do not have a system which allows multiple appeals? -- Can someone not happy about the appeal file an appeal of the appeal? -- Only exception might be where there is an erroneous conflict of interest decision. -- Outcome of appeal is always going to end up being subject to Accountability mechanisms since ICANN will act on the decision in the appeal.  There should be interlocutory appeal of conflict of interest determination. -- What about limiting to one appeal and one request for reconsideration? -- Time is of the essence. The sooner we get to an answer the better, rather than drawing it out with multiple appeals. Who should bear the costs of an appeal? -- A lot of the commenters said the loser should pay. But if you failed an evaluation and you appeal, and the appeal says you shouldn’t have failed, who pays? -- Everyone should be held accountable. If it’s proven that the third party made a mistake then they should pay. -- Disagree; these are adjudicators and as long as it is within reasonable standards of right or wrong they shouldn’t have to pay. If there was gross negligence or misconduct then maybe the third party should pay. -- Impact of who would hear the appeal if the deciding body is stuck with the cost -- they shouldn’t hear the appeal if they are stuck with the cost if the appeal finds them to be in error. You wouldn’t find someone who was willing to take this on. If they get too many wrong ICANN can terminate them. What are the possible remedies for a successful appellant? -- Many commenters said that it depends on the nature of the appeal. -- Agreement that the remedy will be dependent upon what is being appealed. Usually some sort of reversal of the appealed decision.

1 0