Thank you Jamie, for reminding us of this detail of our deliberations, it will be noted. Sorry to miss you on the call tomorrow. Best, Karen From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jamie Baxter Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 10:18 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] June 14 call - "Objections" EXTERNAL Dear Working Group members, My advance apologies for not being able to attend the June 14 call due to other commitments. I would like to add the following when discussing section 1.8.1 of Dispute Proceedings (Objections). Missing from the deliberations section on Community Objections (1.8.1, f, page 12) is the issue I raised in WT3 that panelists must be properly trained and managed to ensure they avoid delivering decisions that are based on (or rely on) any assumptions about future contention resolution proceedings and decisions. The example that I provided was a Community Objection filed against .LGBT. In this case, the panelist made a statement in his decision that assumes the gay community would be awarded a gTLD of its own (ie. .GAY) and therefore he believed that material detriment did not exist in letting .LGBT proceed. This assumption has not yet come to fruition and therefore the material detriment has not yet been eliminated. It was the panelists' job to eliminate harm to a community, but instead he punted his responsibilities. Panelist decision on .LGBT - https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/drsp/25nov13/determination-1-... (page 8) 23. ILGA has shown a likelihood of material detriment to the legitimate interests of the gay community if there is no gTLD designed to serve the gay community and to operate under appropriate principles that grant safety and financial rewards for the gay community. ILGA has not proven that other gTLDs with names that can also be targeted to the gay community are likely to cause material detriment to the legitimate interests of the gay community or a significant portion thereof. They can only cause a certain amount of competition, and Afilias has convincingly argued that there is a legitimate interest in targeting the gay community without belonging to it or without belonging to the portion of it that supports the string .gay. A coexistence of an "official" gTLD of the gay community and another "unofficial" gTLD is no material detriment to the legitimate interests of the gay community. Concern about this shortcoming was raised with ICANN at the time and a request was even submitted to ICANN to consider putting .LGBT put on hold until all material detriment highlighted by the panelist was eliminated (ie. the gay community being awarded .GAY as assumed by the panelist). ICANN rejected the request and also made it clear that the decisions in Community Objections have no mandatory bearing on other contention resolution proceedings like CPE. Despite the panelist acknowledging the likelihood of material detriment to the gay community in certain conditions of this particular Community Objection, there was no procedure or accountability to ensure the conditions were avoided once the decision was given to ICANN. I request that this issue be included in the deliberations section for full transparency on the Objections topic. I am happy to take any questions on this topic here on the list. Much thanks Jamie Jamie Baxter dotgay LLC jamie@dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com> www.dotgay.com<http://www.dotgay.com/> A Certified LGBT Business Enterprise (LGBTBE) Please join us on Facebook at www.facebook.dotgay.com<http://www.facebook.dotgay.com/> and follow us at www.twitter.com/dotgay<http://www.twitter.com/dotgay> [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon> Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...>