Aha.

Many organizations that might conceivably want or feel entitled to launch an objection are underfunded. Should ICANN therefore fund any organization without money  "commensurate with the number of applications received"?

Unless ALAC is granted a special objector role, funding should not be contemplated. ALAC can voice the concerns of the internet users without raising a formal objection. Or it could raise the money required from its constituents or others that share its concerns. Just like anyone else.

I now wish to relay the ALAC's response on the matter of its ability to file both Limited Public Interest Objections and Community Objections in Subsequent Procedures, as well as appeals against any DRSP decisions dismissing the ALAC's filed Objections. The response is as follows:

The ALAC has no funding ability beyond that supplied by ICANN. It is not feasible for the ALAC to raise funds to finance an appeal (or objection) or to bear costs under a “loser pays” model if its appeal is unsuccessful.

Any withholding of ICANN funding for the ALAC to file objections and/or appeals would be tantamount to denying ALAC the ability to fulfill its duty under the Bylaws as the primary organisational constituency for the voice and concerns of the individual Internet user.  

As to any contemplated limits to the number of appeals or quantum of ICANN funding to ALAC in light of ICANN budgetary constraints, the ALAC believes that its ICANN funding must be commensurate with number of applications received.

The question of standing for the ALAC to file an objection and appeal is beyond the scope of the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG. It is a question for the ALAC to consider and the Dispute Resolution Service Provider and Appeals Arbiter to determine in respect of an objection and appeal, respectively.