I reviewed the ICANN bylaws and found nothing on a specific role with regard to new TLD applications. Nothing prevents ALAC from providing advice wrt any application. But if they want to raise a formal objection within their mandate and standing, ALAC should be treated like anyone else.
The request for funding based on the number of applications
received is frankly ridiculous as it presumes that a certain
percentage of these are going to be objectionable no matter what.
The role of ALAC in this could be to provide advice to the
indepentent objector, who would then have to consider the advice
and either reject it (don't file) or accept it and file the
objection based on on its own mandate. There is no need for a
second independent objector that would have to be paid for by all
applicants and ultimately the internet community at large...
Volker Greimann
Aha?
The ALAC is not "just like anyone else"; it is one of several specific Advisory Committees provided for in ICANN's Bylaws and one of 2 Advisory Committees which were funded to file objections in the last round. This funding to file objections is expected to continue in Subsequent Procedures and the ALAC submits that it ought to include reasonable funding to finance appeals as a matter of due process.
Justine-----
On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 at 16:32, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
_______________________________________________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.
Am 22.10.2019 um 07:53 schrieb Justine Chew:
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.--
Volker A. Greimann
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.