Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group on Monday, 23 September 2019 at 14:00 UTC.

I have an opening question

follow-up

Good day all.

Tx!@

@Kathy: Note that the best source of reference is the recording and transcript, which are available quite quickly after the meeting.

The brief notes that staff captures are necessarily not as accurate.

Some groups do DAIRs - Decisions, Action Items, Responsibilities — quickly after each meeting. Just bulletpoints.

@Julie - that's why I am asking for something more. +1 Greg

@Greg, an excellent approach indeed.

@Greg: But for that to happen those items would need to be called out during the meeting, ideally by leadership.

So that they could be accurately isolated and captured.

@Julie - Understood — but if the process exists, the leadership would be aware of their role — and staff can gently query leadership to see if there are any DAIRs there.

Correct Jeff

They should be called "GAC interest commitments".

@Kathy - wouldn’t those concerns be raised in the public comment when PICs are proposed?

We could rename them "Registry Commitments".

Every objection mechanism I know is asking for fundamental changes -- the application and therefore the contract itself is at stake.

Can we call it CPE Objections?

We should not confuse Community Objections with Commmunity Priority Evaluations.

@Kathy CPE isn't an objection at all

+1 Susan

E in CPE stands for Evaluation

I think this is a confusion caused by Jamie's examples last week

to be clear, Jamie did say he was extrapolating from CPE examples

but I think it has caused confusion

@Kathy: Community Objections come from affected community members, the CPE aims if a community applicant fulfills the community criteria.

OK, lets keep the Opposition / Objection separate.

The Opposition component of CPE we will tackle when we discuss CPE (2 topics from now)

For today, lets focus ONLY on Community-based objections

what?

@Jamie, thanks yes, that's what I meant in my comment above

@Jamie, I understand you. Thanks for that.

CPE Opposition - Community Objection

Objections filed by under Community Objections should be time-limited just as with other objections - String Confusion, Legal Rights, Limited Public Interest. CPE should not be used to "submit" opposition akin to an objection.

+1 Justine

In theory makes sense, but practically difficult.

+1 Justine

This has been an issue during the last application round.

Meaning there shouldn't be 2 bites of the cherry for anyone to "object" to community applications.

@Jamie - is this CPE Opposition that you are referencing?

I do apologise for being here so late

@Kathy .. Community Objections. We had an objection against our application that refused to engage with us in dialogue so that we could a) confirm they were not simply gaming & b) clarify the points of our application in order to avoid the objection because it was clear they misunderstood it

Please go ahead Jeff

@Jeff, spot on. On "Standing IRT" which is why I put in extra comment in googledoc.

OK thanks

@Steve, could you post the link to this doc? Tx!

@Jamie - were Community Objections allowed to CPE applications? Are you trying to ban that?

Here’s the link @Kathy: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-KNrPs/edit?usp=sharing

It’s also in the agenda

@Kathy .. there is no such thing as a community objection to CPE

Who would do the "quick look" -- presumably the third party dispute provider?

@Jamie - per your comments: "Community Objections. We had an objection against our application that refused to engage with us in dialogue so.."

@Kathy .. the Community Objection occurred during the Objection period, not during CPE

I thought "quick look" was done by ICANN Org? But I could be wrong.

@Jamie, right!

ICANN Org is much more likely to outsource this than to do internally.

Okay!

Thanks!

From the AGB regarding the Limited Public Interest: The quick look is the Panel’s first task, after its appointment by the DRSP and is a review on the merits of the objection. The dismissal of an objection that is manifestly unfounded and/or an abuse of the right to object would be an Expert Determination, rendered in accordance with Article 21 of the New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure.

Can we embody this agreement?

did that happen?

which string again?

health - ok - thanks

Good idea: This free of cost objection for ALAC should remain.

I think it was 3 objections against .heath because they were multiple applicants for the same string.

well is it free - or paid for by ICANN (in essence - not free)

While the string was always .health, it was actually 3 different objections, and the .health contention set had 4 applicants.

What about objection-bundling?

(3 different ALAC objections)

@Rubens, yup, that's what I recalled as well. Thanks.

Could Council of Europe have meant "clarify ALAC's tasks in the Applicant Guidebook?"

+1 Jeff

re: standing issue

Without standing nobody can object; right?

@Alexander - no

ALAC can object without "standing"

Standing was required for string confusion objections.

Ieeecks

@Alexander, re: objection-bundling, that's one of the recommendations in this section.

How do we find out?

Tnx

Do others agree ALAC should have "standing"?

If the application impacts the AtLarge community - they have standing. If not; why would they object in the first place?

The panelist in the ALAC objection said he was unable to differentiate between standing and merits of the matter in community objections, so he seemed to indicate that he wouldn't rule just on the standing.

Determination: https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/drsp/17jan14/determination-1-1-1489-82287-en.pdf

I have additional comments on DotTrademark TLD... and ALAC.

Notice should come from the DRP.

@Jeff -- it's more than standing.

@Kathy, I don't know what else you want to "clarify" with ALAC's ability to file objections.

3 objections on 1 string

Yes, ALAC filed 3 objections against .health. We have a stringent process within ALAC to get to filing an objection.

I was thinking the same thing -- some type of ratio for ALAC filing...

Personally, I don't agree that there should be a limit on the number of Objections ALAC can file. If there is significant interest in this idea, I can check with IPC. It seems arbitrary to specify a ratio or a number.

Note that a reasonable limit for ALAC could be 5 (if for each region), and they used less than that. So while there were no limits, they used that ability carefully.

Indeed Justine I am concerned re @Jeff's comment about the entity 'getting its ducks in a row

@Kathy, I would objection to that.

I would OBJECT to that.

@Justine - I'm just reflecting the comments.

They're pretty clear...

+1 Rubens

Limits should be qualitative not quantitative.

the High bar is I would think a limitation is it not?

I think so, Cheryl.

@Greg, as I said ALAC has a stringent process for deciding on whether to file an objection or not.

Would Qualitative limits go back to the virtually impossible task of defining Global Public Interest? If the Board defines it, then you might have a good reference point.

wouldn't a quick look address that?

I don't think ALAC exercises its access to "funding" for objection very lightly.

Perhaps setting a target instead of a hard limit ?

especially under the new ICANN budget pressures that were not in focuse back in 2011

Tend to agree with Justine. (personal hat) If ICANN Board defines Global Public Interest, then okay maybe use that standard but you are adding a determination to be made by the Panelist.

ALAC like GAC is also required to act in the GPI however

@Jim, the ALAC is well aware of budgetary constraints. Again, as I said, I don't think ALAC exercises its access to "funding" for objection lightly.

Maybe reference ALAC Charter - they should determine that role

its Yes part of the "Acting in the best interests of theend User" role

The ByLaws say that the Board must have a 60% vote to override GAC Advice. The question is what "presumption" means because at the point of the Advice, the issue will not have reached a Board vote - it's maybe just a "warning" in the AGB.

Presumably we cannot tell the GAC to change it's processes but we can make recommendations?

Language should say OR rather than "and" between the "(i) and the (ii).

Perhaps it being a SHOULD instead of MUST ?

Yeap

Susan is correct. And I don't think GAC Advice has to be based on law so language would be "and/or" between (i) and (ii))

NEXT CALL: Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

Bye for now...

Bye alll!

Thanks, Jeff.

Thanks

my comment was meant to refer to issues like providing a contact for the GAC advice.

Bye Now

Ciao