Snapshot of Etherpad taken from http://willyou.typewith.me/p/BlueSky%20-%20Objection%20Process
Updated from Etherpad: 5 Dec 1335 UTC
Blue sky exercise - questions, possible requirements and possible solutions
- 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)
<CLO> My first thought on this choice is the latter => a Community Objection raised by the At-Large ( or can it be at-large??? why not?) 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)
- Is there estimate of how many applicatons 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 accessable accountable and transparant....
- if so what sort of tools?
- <CLO> darn good question => in this we must consider MUCH more...