- CPWG - lists.icann.org

Feedback on EPDP Form Community Questions
by Evin Erdogdu Dec. 24, 2018

Dec. 24, 2018

Dear All, Further to the AI from today’s CPWG call, please see below feedback on EPDP form community questions. Thanks to all for productive feedback regarding the form. * Community concern about the Google Form “harvesting all the information” submitted via the form. It was noted ICANN org and community use forms already, but this would be first time for public comment process. The comments are also public, but the concern was Google retention of the data. Any ALAC members concerned with Google’s retention of data may submit comments by filling out the word version of the form and sending it to At-Large Staff staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> or policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>. * Alternatives to the form. It was noted that for some in the world (i.e. in China), Google products are not available. Is there an official alternative submission method? One could use a Word Doc or PDF of the form. In general, the community wanted to know rationale for using Google forms for the whole process, as opposed to a fillable PDF, or Word doc template for comments? To facilitate offline work, or for those who may not have access to the form, you may download an offline version of the form here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-public-c…. Please submit completed forms to At-Large Staff staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> or policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>. EPDP Leadership chose to utilize Google Forms because Google automatically sorts and organizes answers to questions, which will expedite the process of compiling comments received. For more information, anyone interested may refer to the EPDP Leadership webinar<https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/2018-11-29+EPDP+Initial+Report…>, during which the rationale for and explanation of the Google Form is described. * Public visibility of draft mode. It was noted you may save progress on the Google Form, then submit later, but that the saved work was public. This was seen as undesirable by many in the community. Is there a way to not have the draft/saved form public; only have the final submission public? Commenters have the option of using the word version to work offline and then can complete the Google form when finished. We are not aware of a way to save progress privately on Google Forms. * Concerns with mistakes in the form submission process. The suggested alternative to the above was working from a Word doc, then copying + pasting over. The concern was the potential for mistakes. If mistakes are made on the submission, as is currently done, would it be possible to remove or revise the submission to public comment? Yes. Commenters are able to edit their previous submission by following prompts in the email they will receive from Google. If the commenter would like to delete a submission, please notify policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>, and EPDP Staff Support can assist. Kind Regards, Evin

11 15

Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [GTLD-WG] Feedback on EPDP Form Community Questions
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 22, 2018

Dec. 22, 2018

Two reasons, in my mind. - Although I don't know how often it happens, by submitting a reply early, (or in this case a partial reply), you give others the chance to rebut it. By submitting at the last moment, there is no such potential. - We have seen multiple times when people make draft versions public while the discussion is still going on, and others from outside the group start treating them as "official statements" of the group. We are still suffering from the perception that ATLAS III will cost $5,000,000 because it showed up on one individual's slide at one point. "It was in a PowerPoint slide deck, it MUST be official." Alan At 22/12/2018 12:01 PM, Jonathan Zuck wrote: I guess I'm not sure why privacy is important here. Just do the work in a public living document Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2018 11:51:10 AM To: Greg Shatan; Evin Erdogdu Cc: cpwg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Feedback on EPDP Form Community Questions Hello all, On 19/12/2018 17:20, Greg Shatan wrote: EPDP Leadership chose to utilize Google Forms because Google automatically sorts and organizes answers to questions, which will expedite the process of compiling comments received. To put this in more concrete terms, Google Forms automatically flows the answers through to a spreadsheet, where each submitter gets their own row, and each question gets its own column. Voila, each each cell contains a single party’s answer to a single question. This saves untold hours of cutting and pasting. The spreadsheet also tabulates the answers to multiple choice questions. My point is that for ICANN communities that submit a Statement on behalf of a constituency and therefore not a personal comment, this is a false economy, as the cut/paste work now either needs to be done by At-Large Staff, or by unpaid volunteers. Pushing the work to the edges, is an unfair way to save money at the core. Kindest regards, Olivier _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

1 0

Forget dot com, 2019 will finally be the year of weird domain names | WIRED UK
by Justine Chew Dec. 21, 2018

Dec. 21, 2018

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/domain-names-future-of-internet Just sharing some news from WIRED UK. Happy holidays, everyone. Regards, Justine Chew -----

1 0

Reminder: ACTION/CPWG - Call for Comments by 20 Dec 23:59 UTC: Supplemental Initial Report on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (Overarching Issues & Work Tracks 1-4)
by Evin Erdogdu Dec. 20, 2018

Dec. 20, 2018

Dear All, Kind reminder that the related statement will close for comment today at 23:59 UTC, and will be submitted tomorrow, Friday, 21 December. Thank you, Evin From: Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 10:04 AM To: "cpwg(a)icann.org" <cpwg(a)icann.org> Cc: Justine Chew <justine.chew(a)gmail.com>, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Subject: ACTION/CPWG - Call for Comments by 20 Dec 23:59 UTC: Supplemental Initial Report on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (Overarching Issues & Work Tracks 1-4) Dear CPWG Members, On behalf of ALAC Chair, Maureen Hilyard and the related statement penholder, Justine Chew, the revised draft ALAC statement (dated 19 December) for the SubPro Supplemental Report has been posted to its wiki workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/Jh68BQ>. Please comment by 20 December 2018 at 23:59 UTC. Attached is the redline word copy (v4). Kind Regards, Evin Ashley Erdoğdu Policy Development Sr. Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0

Reminder: EPDP Submission on Friday, 21 December
by Evin Erdogdu Dec. 20, 2018

Dec. 20, 2018

Dear CPWG Members, A reminder to please note the updated draft submission; the ALAC statement on the public comment will be submitted tomorrow (Friday), 21 December. Kind Regards, Evin -----Original Message----- From: registration-issues-wg <registration-issues-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 8:50 AM To: CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org> Subject: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] EPDP Submission The draft submission has been updated at https://community.icann.org/x/1wLuBQ, largely in response to the comments submitted. A The most significant changes are for questions 29, 30, 44, 45, 145, 147. I don't think that any of the changes will change the comfort level of those who have been active in our discussions within At-Large. The document is largely frozen subject to final editing and will be submitted on Friday. Alan _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

1 0

ACTION/CPWG - Call for Comments by 20 Dec 23:59 UTC: Supplemental Initial Report on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (Overarching Issues & Work Tracks 1-4)
by Evin Erdogdu Dec. 20, 2018

Dec. 20, 2018

Dear CPWG Members, On behalf of ALAC Chair, Maureen Hilyard and the related statement penholder, Justine Chew, the revised draft ALAC statement (dated 19 December) for the SubPro Supplemental Report has been posted to its wiki workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/Jh68BQ>. Please comment by 20 December 2018 at 23:59 UTC. Attached is the redline word copy (v4). Kind Regards, Evin Ashley Erdoğdu Policy Development Sr. Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

2 1

REMINDER / Meeting Invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 19 December 2018 at 13:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Dec. 19, 2018

Dec. 19, 2018

If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<file:///composeviewinternalloadurl/staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number. Please remember that it is now possible to connect your audio via the AC room, without using your telephone. You need a stable internet connection. If you would like a reminder of how to connect please let staff know. Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 19 December 2018 at 13:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y7xqgzxo The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/cQj_BQ AC Room: https://participate.icann.org/cpwg/ ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

Comment on IRTP
by Holly Raiche Dec. 17, 2018

Dec. 17, 2018

Hi Jonathan I’ve had a quick look at the IRTP issue, and am not convinced we should comment for a couple of reasons: this issues involved really concern registrants. That said, this can involve many small businesses and we should support the aims of IRTP including both ensuring the processes are in place to allow a relatively easy way for registrants to change registrars, while following processes designed to minimize fraud two issues in the IRTP space are still to be resolve. The first one discussed in the paper is a revised process of transfer accommodating the EPDP and impacts of GDPR - ( data that had previously been accessible by registrars now must be entered by the registrant) and the extend to which RDAP, as adopted, will facilitate access to the data concluding - this is not a huge issue for end users, and there are still some unknowns both from the EPDP and RADP Happy to discuss on the CPWG call Holly

1 0

Call for inputs to develop At-Large/ALAC responses to New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures Supplemental Initial Report
by Justine Chew Dec. 17, 2018

Dec. 17, 2018

Dear colleagues, Further to the backgrounder presentation made during the call earlier today (on 7 Nov) on the New gTLD SubPro Supplemental Initial Report (WT 1-4), I now invite you to share your inputs on the 5 additional topics for the CPWG's onward deliberations. Topic 2.1 Auctions: Mechanism of Last Resort Topic 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (including Private Auctions) Topic 2.3 Role of Application Comment Topic 2.4 Change Request Topic 2.5 Registrar Support for New gTLDs Please do so either: (1) *preferably*, by posting on the relevant wiki workspace found at https://community.icann.org/x/_wq8BQ <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2F_wq8BQ…> - if possible, please post inputs corresponding to each of the 5 additional topics in reply to the 5 posts set out on the wiki page; or (2) by starting an email thread on the CPWG mail list marked with [SubPro SIR] and the topic. Thank you, Justine Chew -----

15 27

Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [GTLD-WG] Fwd: Calltfortfeedback on proposed At-Large/ALAC positions to NewtgTLDtSubsequent Procedures Supplemental Initial Report
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 16, 2018

Dec. 16, 2018

When I weigh the potential benefits to an RFP-approach to final decisions - the potential for picking the "right" applicant (understanding that "right" is a value-judgement) vs the chance for setting it up with the best intentions but the results being less than satisfactory, I am afraid that the scale is HEAVILY weighted in the second side. There are just too many ways that this can go awry to be added at the last moment and with no opportunity to test it until it is too late. Alan At 16/12/2018 05:52 PM, Jonathan Zuck wrote: I think we really need to choose our battles in this one and that doesn't include changing the whole program over... Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander(a)schubert.berlin> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2018 5:37:38 PM To: cpwg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Fwd: [registration-issues-wg] Call for feedback on proposed At-Large/ALAC positions to New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Supplemental Initial Report Hi, To that point (RFP-type of solution): It seems that in the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of cases it has been "portfolio applicants" squaring off against each other; and they just wanted a "fair compensation" for "giving up their asset". All of them are the same "good" or "bad": they make the TLD available via registrar channel. Only a very small percentage of contention sets ended up at the ICANN last resort love-fest. So I think these few cases could be resolved in a RFP style way....... The question is: Even if ALAC is in agreement with such stipulation; how to convince the rest of ICANN? Thanks, Alexander -----Original Message----- From: GTLD-WG [ mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Chillcott Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 11:16 PM To: cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu Cc: cpwg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Fwd: [registration-issues-wg] Call for feedback on proposed At-Large/ALAC positions to New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Supplemental Initial Report Christopher: Although I am not a fan of the idea of an auction of any type, I am warming to the idea that this might be the most feasible alternative. Of the other candidate solutions, the best would probably be the Request for Proposal (RFP) route. This would answer the one question that auctions are weakest on - how is this applicant qualified to operate this particular TLD? Having said that, Requests for Proposal would need to be quite carefully crafted. Criteria for selection of an applicant would need to be carefully and specifically described in order to measure the applicant against the purpose of the new TLD. This is not easy and, in fact, can be expensive. Collection and evaluation of the responses, which is going to involve carefully measuring the response against the RFP's criteria to find “the best fit” .is another effort that would need to be considered and costed out. Part of that cost, by the way, is the time required to develop the RFP, collect the responses and evaluate them – all of which contribute to the length of time needed to make a decision. My own experience suggests that these costs would need to be examined and compared to the cost of an auction of whatever type. Gordon Chillcott Greater Toronto Area Linux Users Group On Wed, 2018-12-12 at 21:28 +0100, cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu wrote: > Pour memoire > > CW > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > CPWG mailing list > CPWG(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

1 0