<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Thank you, Marita, for your support on the proposed position.<br><br>Dear all, <br><br>The proposed position is tweaked further for added clarity ....<br><br><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><b><span class="gmail_default">The </span>ALAC
has no funding ability beyond that
supplied by ICANN. It is not
feasible for ALAC to raise funds
to finance an appeal<span class="gmail_default">
(or objection)</span> or to bear
costs if <span class="gmail_default">its
</span>appeal is unsuccessful <font color="#0000ff">in the event a "loser-pay" model were to apply</font>. <span class="gmail_default">
Any withholding of ICANN funding
for ALAC to file objections
and/or appeals would be
tantamount to denying ALAC the
ability to fulfill its duty
under the Bylaws as the</span></b><b> <span class="gmail_default">p</span>rimary organisational
constituency for the voice and
concerns of individual
Internet users<span class="gmail_default">.</span> <span class="gmail_default"> </span></b><b><span class="gmail_default">As
to q</span>uantum<span class="gmail_default">
for or </span>limits<span class="gmail_default"> to such ICANN funding <font color="#0000ff">contemplated</font> in <font color="#0000ff">view</font> of
ICANN budgetary constraints, ALAC
believes that<font color="#0000ff"> its funding to file objections and/or any appeals</font></span> <span class="gmail_default">m</span>ust
<span class="gmail_default"></span>commensurate
with the number of applications<span class="gmail_default">
received</span>.</b> </span><br clear="all"></div><div><div dir="ltr" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><br><font face="arial, sans-serif"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Justine</span></font><br>-----</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div><span></span><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 at 15:37, Marita Moll <<a href="mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net" target="_blank">mmoll@ca.inter.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Hi Justine. I am in
total agreement with your draft position. Your excellent work on
this difficult file is much appreciated.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Marita</font><br>
</p>
<div>On 10/11/2019 5:15 AM, Justine Chew
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Thank you
very much, Carlton, for your comments.<br>
<br>
Might others in CPWG have input on this issue? In any case,
the plan is to take this up again at next week's CPWG call to
form a concrete response (if any) <br>
<br>
(Apologies for cross-posting)</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
<font face="arial, sans-serif"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Thanks,<br>
</span></font><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Justine</span><br>
-----</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 22:35,
Carlton Samuels <<a href="mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com" target="_blank">carlton.samuels@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large">Thanks
Justine. Another yeoman's task accomplished with aplomb! </div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large">In
my view the right to file objections is established and
the right to file appeals in those cases simply affirms
the course of natural justice and thusly, should too be
established. In similar vein, a right to file an appeal
on an evaluation decision pertaining community-type
applications for any ASP booted in the coming round would
be in the At-Large's interest.</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large">That
the caviling will coalesce around money is inevitable. I
certainly think that if these were to be privileged via
the SubPro WG recommendations, then the WG ought to follow
the lines of the CCT RT Recommendation #35 and referenced
broadly on Byelaw-mandated responsibilities rather than
specifying AC's. </div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large">-Carlton </div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
==============================<br>
<i><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif">Carlton
A Samuels</font></i><br>
<font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif"><i>Mobile:
876-818-1799<br>
<font color="#33CC00">Strategy, Process,
Governance, Assessment & Turnaround</font></i></font><br>
=============================</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at
6:38 AM Justine Chew <<a href="mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com" target="_blank">justine.chew@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Just
to provide further context,<br>
<br>
When we speak of "Accountability Mechanism" in
SubPro, we are referring to appeals mechanism
essentially, and the idea of recommending the
establishment of a new appeals mechanism/layer,
which would apply strictly to any upcoming New gTLD
Program round. Not to be confused with the existing
Accountability Mechanism under the ICANN Bylaws, yet
considering whether mechanisms like Request for
Reconsideration and Independent Review Panels would
be applicable to decisions arising under the Program
and under what circumstances those would or would
not be applicable.<br>
<br>
I would prefer to keep the question of whether a new
appeals mechanism is desirable or not independent to
the question of ALAC's right to file Objections and
Appeals. The Objections mechanism is still going to
be outsourced to third-party Dispute Resolution
Service Providers (DRSP) for the new round because
of reliance on their expertise, while the right to
appeal will be likely involve such DRSP anyway. <br>
<br>
<b>Now, addressing strictly what applies to
ALAC/At-Large in respect of <u>Objections</u></b>,<br>
<br>
1. In the 2012 round, there effectively wasn't any <u>substantive</u>
appeal mechanism available to ALAC (or any objector
or applicant, for that matter) to appeal against an
unfavourable decision by a third-party Objection
DRSP. Under the 2012 AGB, ALAC was able to file
Limited Public Interest Objections or Community
Objections with funding provided by ICANN, and as
pointed out by Alan, Olivier and Cheryl at the CPWG
call of 9 Oct, ALAC filed 3 objections with respect
to the .health string.<br>
<br>
2. In the SubPro Initial Report of 3 July 2018, a
question was posed to the community.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><i>"</i><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">Q.
2.8.1.e.10 </span><i>ICANN agreed to fund any
objections filed by the ALAC in the 2012 round.
Should this continue to be the case moving
forward? Please explain. If this does continue,
should any limits be placed on such funding, and
if so what limits? Should ICANN continue to fund
the ALAC or any party to file objections on
behalf of others?"</i></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
In response, vide its Statement of 3 October 2018
(see: <a href="https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=88573813" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=88573813</a>),
ALAC said,<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><i>"<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">Yes,
the ALAC believes strongly that ICANN should
continue to fund all objections filed by us in
the future rounds. As ICANN’s primary
organisational constituency for the voice and
concerns of the individual Internet user, the
ALAC bears a responsibility as an established
institution to pursue Limited Public Interest
and/or Community objections against
applications for New gTLDs which it believes
does not benefit individual Internet end users
as a whole.</span></i></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><i style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)"><br>
</i></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><i style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">The
existing limits or conditions placed on funding
for ALAC objection filing and Dispute Resolution
Procedure (DRP) costs already form an arduous
“stress test” to not only establish the validity
of a contemplated Community objection, but also
support for it within At-Large.</i></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><i><br>
</i></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><i>However,
for ALAC objections to have proper effect as
intended in the AGB, the ALAC proposes that
guidance for DRSP panellists be substantial in
respect of adopting definitions of terms – such
as “community” and “public interest” – as well
as questions on objector standing, in an effort
to limit the ‘damage’ resulting from panellists’
unfamiliarity with the ICANN Community
structure, divergent panellists’ views, even
values, on the same, and which conflict with the
goals stated in ICANN’s Bylaws or GNSO consensus
policy."</i></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
3. In the SubPro PDP WG deliberations of all public
comments received to the said Initial Report,
questions again arose as to whether <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><i><b>ICANN</b></i></span><i><b> </b></i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><i>(sic)</i> </span>should
continue to fund objections to be filed by ALAC in
subsequent procedure, and if yes, to what extent.
This is because there were public comments which
basically questioned why ALAC should have "special
rights" (standing versus funding) to file
objections. <br>
<br>
In my opinion, <b>the question of ALAC's standing
should not be considered in SubPro deliberations</b>
-- that is a question for ALAC itself (considered
through ALAC's INTERNAL process for determining
whether an objection should be filed) and a question
for the Objection DRSP (it has been the ground of
dismissal for ALAC's prior objections ie "ALAC
having no standing to object").<br>
<br>
<b><u>On the question of funding, we now have a
choice whether to reinforce the ALAC statement
(as presented above) or consider recanting ie
giving up the fight to keep the right to file
objections in new rounds</u></b>. </div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div><u><br>
</u>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><b>And <span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">addressing strictly what
applies to ALAC/At-Large in
respect of </span><span style="text-decoration-line:underline;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">Appeals</span></b><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">,<br>
</span></div>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">4.
In the SubPro PDP WG deliberations a
consequent question was raised in
mooting the recommendation for a new
appeals mechanism -- if ICANN were
to fund objections to be filed by
ALAC in the new round, should ICANN
also fund the costs of appeals to be
filed by ALAC against any decision
rendered that was unfavourable to
ALAC (on a loser-pay model)?<br>
<br>
5. This is where the discussion in
the CPWG call of 9 Oct has
progressed to. I noted that there
is support for the retention of
right to file objections which ought
be accompanied by the right to file
appeals. Therefore, a draft position
was presented and which I have now
refined for feedback / further
refinement ...<br>
<br>
</div>
<b><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">The </span></span><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">ALAC
has no funding ability beyond that
supplied by ICANN. It is not
feasible for ALAC to raise funds
to finance an appeal<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">
(or objection)</span> or to bear
costs if <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">its
</span>appeal is unsuccessful. <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">
Any withholding of ICANN funding
for ALAC to file objections
and/or appeals would be
tantamount to denying ALAC the
ability to fulfill its duty
under the Bylaws as the</span></span></b><b><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)"> </span><span class="gmail_default" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">p</span><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">rimary organisational
constituency for the voice and
concerns of the individual
Internet user<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">.</span> <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"> </span></span></b><b style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">As
to q</span>uantum<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">
for or </span>limits<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">
to such ICANN funding in light of
ICANN budgetary constraints, ALAC
believes that it</span> <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">m</span>ust
<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"></span>commensurate
with number of applications<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">
received</span>.</b><br>
<br>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">6.
An aside note -- the notion of
appeals would also be available to
appeal against <u>evaluation</u>
decisions, such as the ones made by
panels for the Applicant Support
Program and CPE. </div>
<br>
<font face="arial, sans-serif"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Apologies
for the long email and thank you
for your attention.<br>
</span><br>
Justine </font><br>
-----</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 10 Oct 2019
at 00:11, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
I would like to raise the issue of the ALAC
ability to object to applications as well as its
ability to appeal such judgements.<br>
<br>
In the last round, the ALAC filed three objections
with one of them later being withdrawn. All were
to
<u>.health</u>.<br>
<br>
<u>I believe that the ALAC needs to formally
determine if it wants such objection rights in
future gTLD rounds</u>. If we do want that
right, I believe that we also need the right to
appeal and in both cases, if we are not funded by
ICANN, then the right is meaningless.<br>
<br>
I do not have copies of the objections we filed,
but for the two cases where there were judgements
(against us), they can be found at:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/drsp/17jan14/determination-1-1-1489-82287-en.pdf" target="_blank">https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/drsp/17jan14/determination-1-1-1489-82287-en.pdf</a>
;<br>
<a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/drsp/17jan14/determination-1-1-1684-6394-en.pdf" target="_blank">https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/drsp/17jan14/determination-1-1-1684-6394-en.pdf</a>
.<br>
<br>
I believe that the ALAC decsiion should be based
on the past history and on whether we truly
believe that we will allocate appropriate
resources to such a future action.<br>
<br>
In aid of that, I suggest the CPWG, and more
importantly the ALAC, be quickly briefed by
Olivier (who as ALAC Chair was the point person in
the earlier objections) on the history and efforts
associated with the three .health objections.<br>
<br>
I may be on today's call but if so, only for part
of it.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
At 06/10/2019 11:00 AM, Justine Chew wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Dear all, <br>
<br>
Reference is made to the <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/6a_jBg" target="_blank"><b>SubPro
Updates workspace</b></a>.
<br>
<br>
The Subsequent Procedures PDP WG has started
deliberating on public comments received on the
topic of Accountability Mechanism on 1 Oct 2019.
Deliberations will continue on its next call on
7 Oct at 15:00 UTC.
<br>
<br>
Here is an <a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/01.%20SubPro%20Accountability%20Mechanism%20%5BAppeals%5D%20as%20at%205.10.2019%20for%20CPWG.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1570370108344&api=v2" target="_blank">
<b>update on the topic of Accountability
Mechanism as at 5 Oct 2019</b></a>. <br>
<br>
Please note that while "Accountability
Mechanism" is better associated with mechanism
per the Bylaws, namely Request for
Reconsideration, Independent Review Process and
ICANN Ombudsman, within the SubPro context,
"Accountability Mechanism" is about appeals for
the new gTLD Program -- looking at rights and
forms of appeals to decisions made during
evaluation, objections, either by ICANN
Org/Board, external evaluators, external third
party Dispute Resolution Service Providers
(DRSPs), as well as in respect of
post-delegation dispute resolution procedures.<br>
<br>
CCT Recommendation #35 is picked up under this
topic, specifically sub-recommendation (3) "<i>Introducing
a post dispute resolution panel review
mechanism</i>".<br>
<br>
As I alluded to at the CPWG call of 26 Sep under
the topic of Objections, there were public
comments which suggested that ALAC's ability to
file Objections in subsequent procedures be
explicitly limited on account of budgetary
constraint.<br>
<br>
Along the same lines, a question was raised
during the last SubPro WG call as to whether
AC's should be funded by ICANN to file appeals.
This is something which may require addressing
either through a position relayed to SubPro WG
momentarily and/or in any statement in response
to the call for public comments to SubPro WG's
final report in due course.<br>
<br>
On that note, I wish you a pleasant week ahead.<br>
<br>
<font face="arial">Justine Chew </font><br>
-----<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CPWG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CPWG@icann.org" target="_blank">CPWG@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" target="_blank">
https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and
the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" target="_blank">
https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). 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.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
GTLD-WG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org" target="_blank">GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg</a><br>
<br>
Working Group direct URL: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs" target="_blank">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" target="_blank">
https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and
the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" target="_blank">
https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). 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.</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
CPWG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CPWG@icann.org" target="_blank">CPWG@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>).
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._______________________________________________<br>
registration-issues-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org" target="_blank">registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>).
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.</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
<a href="mailto:CPWG@icann.org" target="_blank">CPWG@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg</a>
_______________________________________________
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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). 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.</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>