Page History

...

• Is the At-Large objection process a review of all applications (simlar to the reported GAC process) or an exception process where only applications that are raised by the community (by the At-Large Community)
  • Wiki Markup<CLO> My first&nbsp; thought&nbsp;on this choice is the latter => a Community Objection raised by the At-Large&nbsp; ( or can it be My first  thought on this choice is the latter => a Community Objection raised by the At-Large  ( or can it be at-large???&nbsp;why  why not?) Internet Users&nbsp;&nbsp; if it is&nbsp; At-Large&nbsp; then we should probably also consider a minimum (or threshhold of support { X # of ALSes&nbsp; or Regions&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; etc., in favour of the 'Objection on behalf of a/the \[identified\]&nbsp; Community )&nbsp; that sort of thing...&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; BUT&nbsp; that is a first reaction&nbsp; I can see where&nbsp; a parallel to GAC review plans&nbsp; might also work&nbsp; but then&nbsp; why not&nbsp; let them&nbsp; be Pro-Active&nbsp; from their 'unique&nbsp; POV&nbsp; and we ( ALAC and At-Large)&nbsp; act as conduit&nbsp; for&nbsp;*genuine*&nbsp;Community concerns that has&nbsp; may not fit&nbsp;the GAC&nbsp; 'filter' Yes that might be Re-active&nbsp; but ... ... ...) &nbsp;Internet Users   if it is  At-Large  then we should probably also consider a minimum (or threshhold of support { X # of ALSes  or Regions    etc., in favour of the 'Objection on behalf of a/the [identified]  Community )  that sort of thing...    BUT  that is a first reaction  I can see where  a parallel to GAC review plans  might also work  but then  why not  let them  be Pro-Active  from their 'unique  POV  and we ( ALAC and At-Large)  act as conduit  for genuine Community concerns that has  may not fit the GAC  'filter' Yes that might be Re-active  but ... ... ...)  
  • <avri> I would think that the GAC perspective will be rather different from a At-Large perspective.  The GAC perspective will be controlled by natinal laws and sensitivites.  I do not know exactly what will motivate At-Large objections, but I do not expect they will map to national law and especilly national sensitivities.
  • <BretF> I think it would be really helpful if we thought about the sorts of things that might be objectionable before the application process got underway so prospective applicants could address our concerns. I know some things will only be clear in hindsight, but one measure of success would be announcing the sort of things that the ALAC found objectionable and then having applicants steer clear of our issues. 
  • <DevT> I suggest the latter (applications raised by the community) - From a reading of the gTLD Applicant Guidebook, it looks the ALAC has standing to object on "Limited Public Interest Objection" grounds ; According to Page 154 of the gTLD Applicant Guidebook (19 Sept 2011 clean version) "Established institutions associated with clearly delineated communities are eligible to file a community objection" or the Independent Objector (Page 156)  
  • <CLO> Yes  the 'standing we have on this'  is a privilege that should be guarded and used wisely and transparently with full accountability  etc.
• Is there estimate of how many applications we expect to be subject to At-Large objection process or objection process review
  • <CLO>  nope  not to my knowledge  but I would have thought the number reasonable  low like N=<3-5 or so
  • <DevT> Given that the typical objection and DRSP  fees can range from USD 70,000 to USD 122,000 (Page 47), it seem likely that only a small number of objections (around 3 say) that we would be able to file
• Are there, or should there be, tools to aid in the process. 
  • <CLO>  yup  and they need to be accessible  accountable and transparant....
• if so what sort of tools?
  •  <CLO> darn good question =>  in this  we must consider MUCH more...
•  

...

From: Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com>

Wiki MarkupSubject: Re: \ [GTLD-WG\] Meeting Invitation / gTLD Working Group teleconference - Monday 05 December 2011 at 1400 UTC

Date: 2 December 2011 20:55:45 EST

To: ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org>

Cc: gTLD WG <gtld-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org>

Hi, I cannot join the call but would like to provide my comments on objection process.

If reading from the Guidebook, we could see two specific references to At-large/ALAC objections:

1. Budget--but not clear if it is specifically for at-large to lodge objections to the DRP service provider (ICC);

2. RALO to ALAC process against community-base applications--it is still not clear how to involve individual ALSes.

On additional issue not in the GB: unlike GAC that is entitled to both objection process and independent early warnings, at-large objection seems limited to objection process and no other alternative.

Hong

...