Call for Volunteers | Second Proceeding for Proposed Language for Draft Sections of the Next Round Applicant Guidebook Public Comment Proceeding
Dear CPWG Members, As mentioned during the 11 September 2024<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=373063821> CPWG call, please find linked the public comment proceeding information for the Second Proceeding for Proposed Language for Draft Sections of the Next Round Applicant Guidebook<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/second-proceeding-for-pro...>. The CPWG is conducting a call for volunteers to help review and comment on the ten applicant guidebook topics listed in this proceeding. Specifically, ICANN org has published the following draft sections for input: * Subsequent Application Rounds (Topic 3: Applications Assessed in Rounds) * Background Screening (Topic 22: Registrant Protections) * String Similarity Review (Topic 24: String Similarity Evaluations) * Internationalized Domain Names (Topic 25: IDNs) * Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation (Topic 33: Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation) * Registrar-Non-Discrimination / Registry/Registrar Standardization (Topic 37: Registrar Non-Discrimination / Registry/Registrar Standardization) * Registrar Support for New gTLDs (Topic 38: Registrar Support for New gTLDs) * Root Zone Label Generation Rules (Topic 25: IDNs) * Closed Generics (Topic 23: Closed Generics) If you wish to volunteer, please email staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. Please see the At-Large Workspace<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Seco...> for this proceeding for the draft ALAC/At-Large public comment submission form. This public comment proceeding will be revisited during next week’s CPWG call on 18 September 2024. This public comment proceeding will close on 21 October 2024. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please let us know if you have any questions. Kind regards, At-Large Staff 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> [signature_1936264891]
Hi, This is a follow up based on discussion at the CPWG meeting on 18 Sept. To start, I argued that instead of trying to write a review of each section of the AGB in public comment, we look at this public comment as one where we comment on anything that is problematic with the sections under review. There was some discussion, but this approach seemed acceptable to those in the meeting. I had not prepared the ground for this discussion adequately, surprised some of the active participants, and therefore committed to writing this explanatory follow up note to the CPWG. This, in no way, means that these are less important that the content of other public reviews. Rather, it takes into account the degree of work that has gone into these, including the extensive discussions in the IRT in which the ALAC members (Cheryl & Justine) were rather active. I emphasized that given the long and careful process this text had gone though in getting to this point, that we should focus on several things in determining whether to write a comment or not: * Did our members in the group (C&J) have any strong issue with the outcome. In other words are there any issues that did not conclude successfully in their view that they believe need to be commented on in the public comment period. Any such issues would, normally be something we would comment on. As far as I know, no such issues were raised - but please, Justine and Cheryl, correct me. * In reading these 10 draft sections of the AGB (listed below), did any participants in the CPWG see any issues that they felt fell inside the ALAC purview (effect on end users, detrimental to ICANN, contra the bylaws, &c.) that they felt needed to be fixed, if possible. This had been the task for this session as advertised the week before. * Only one AGB section was mentioned as possibly having an issue: IDN. During the meeting one proponent had connection difficulties and it was hard to understand their issue. Another issue brought up in chat, seemed to be more about UA issues than the AGB. But there is an open invitation for someone to write up a quick paragraph explaining the issue so that it can get full consideration if it is still an issue. As things stand at the moment, we have no public comments in process of being written. The thought coming out of the meeting was for me to solicit again, this time to the list: Does anyone have an issue after reading one of the 10 sections of the draft section of the AGB that they feel: * Has a possible adverse effect on end users? * Has another detrimental effect, whether on the AC, ICANN, or the Internet that falls within the ALAC purview as commonly understood, that needs public comment. If the answer is yes to either of these questions, I request that you respond to this email with: * Reference to the section of the AGB under public comment that is problematic * A paragraph explaining the problem and the change desired. These can then be collected, amplified, and put before the group for a decision moving forward. While the public comment is on a tight and non extensible schedule, we still have time. A draft is not due to the CPWG until 9 Oct. I want to make sure that if there is something that needs to be commented on, it is commented upon, without taking on work that does not need to be done. If the 10 sections of AGB are good, lets rejoice and move on. This topic will be on the agenda again at our next meeting on 25 Oct and every meeting after that until is it too late. Please come ready if you believe that there is something to be to be included in a public comment. thanks avri On 2024-09-11 18:50, ICANN At-Large Staff via CPWG wrote:
Dear CPWG Members,
As mentioned during the 11 September 2024 [1] CPWG call, please find linked the public comment proceeding information for the Second Proceeding for Proposed Language for Draft Sections of the Next Round Applicant Guidebook [2]. The CPWG is conducting a call for volunteers to help review and comment on the ten applicant guidebook topics listed in this proceeding. Specifically, ICANN org has published the following draft sections for input:
* Subsequent Application Rounds (Topic 3: Applications Assessed in Rounds) * Background Screening (Topic 22: Registrant Protections) * String Similarity Review (Topic 24: String Similarity Evaluations) * Internationalized Domain Names (Topic 25: IDNs) * Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation (Topic 33: Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation) * Registrar-Non-Discrimination / Registry/Registrar Standardization (Topic 37: Registrar Non-Discrimination / Registry/Registrar Standardization) * Registrar Support for New gTLDs (Topic 38: Registrar Support for New gTLDs) * Root Zone Label Generation Rules (Topic 25: IDNs) * Closed Generics (Topic 23: Closed Generics)
If you wish to volunteer, please email staff@atlarge.icann.org. Please see the At-Large Workspace [3] for this proceeding for the draft ALAC/At-Large public comment submission form. This public comment proceeding will be revisited during next week's CPWG call on 18 September 2024. This public comment proceeding will close on 21 October 2024.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Please let us know if you have any questions.
Kind regards,
At-Large Staff
At-Large Staff
ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community
Website: atlarge.icann.org [4]
Facebook: facebook.com/icann [5]atlarge [5]
Twitter: @ [6]ICANNAtLarge [6]
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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 (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.
Links: ------ [1] https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=373063821 [2] https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/second-proceeding-for-pro... [3] https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Seco... [4] https://atlarge.icann.org/ [5] https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge [6] https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge
As a follow up on this Bill Jouris undertook an action item in the call, to review the String Similarly topic 24 text, and has done so sending me his feedback. Whilst it is not text written with the clarity and simplicity he would prefer, he sees no issues worthy of flagging as concerns. Therefore is not proposing a response to the PC on this topic. Thank you for your very prompt attention to this Bill we appreciate it very much. CLO On Fri, 20 Sept 2024, 03:15 avri--- via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi,
This is a follow up based on discussion at the CPWG meeting on 18 Sept.
To start, I argued that instead of trying to write a review of each section of the AGB in public comment, we look at this public comment as one where we comment on anything that is problematic with the sections under review. There was some discussion, but this approach seemed acceptable to those in the meeting. I had not prepared the ground for this discussion adequately, surprised some of the active participants, and therefore committed to writing this explanatory follow up note to the CPWG.
This, in no way, means that these are less important that the content of other public reviews. Rather, it takes into account the degree of work that has gone into these, including the extensive discussions in the IRT in which the ALAC members (Cheryl & Justine) were rather active.
I emphasized that given the long and careful process this text had gone though in getting to this point, that we should focus on several things in determining whether to write a comment or not:
- Did our members in the group (C&J) have any strong issue with the outcome. In other words are there any issues that did not conclude successfully in their view that they believe need to be commented on in the public comment period. Any such issues would, normally be something we would comment on. As far as I know, no such issues were raised - but please, Justine and Cheryl, correct me. - In reading these 10 draft sections of the AGB (listed below), did any participants in the CPWG see any issues that they felt fell inside the ALAC purview (effect on end users, detrimental to ICANN, contra the bylaws, &c.) that they felt needed to be fixed, if possible. This had been the task for this session as advertised the week before. - Only one AGB section was mentioned as possibly having an issue: IDN. During the meeting one proponent had connection difficulties and it was hard to understand their issue. Another issue brought up in chat, seemed to be more about UA issues than the AGB. But there is an open invitation for someone to write up a quick paragraph explaining the issue so that it can get full consideration if it is still an issue.
As things stand at the moment, we have no public comments in process of being written. The thought coming out of the meeting was for me to solicit again, this time to the list:
Does anyone have an issue after reading one of the 10 sections of the draft section of the AGB that they feel:
- Has a possible adverse effect on end users? - Has another detrimental effect, whether on the AC, ICANN, or the Internet that falls within the ALAC purview as commonly understood, that needs public comment.
If the answer is yes to either of these questions, I request that you respond to this email with:
- Reference to the section of the AGB under public comment that is problematic - A paragraph explaining the problem and the change desired.
These can then be collected, amplified, and put before the group for a decision moving forward.
While the public comment is on a tight and non extensible schedule, we still have time. A draft is not due to the CPWG until 9 Oct. I want to make sure that if there is something that needs to be commented on, it is commented upon, without taking on work that does not need to be done. If the 10 sections of AGB are good, lets rejoice and move on.
This topic will be on the agenda again at our next meeting on 25 Oct and every meeting after that until is it too late. Please come ready if you believe that there is something to be to be included in a public comment.
thanks
avri
On 2024-09-11 18:50, ICANN At-Large Staff via CPWG wrote:
Dear CPWG Members,
As mentioned during the 11 September 2024 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=373063821> CPWG call, please find linked the public comment proceeding information for the Second Proceeding for Proposed Language for Draft Sections of the Next Round Applicant Guidebook <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/second-proceeding-for-pro...>. The CPWG is conducting a call for volunteers to help review and comment on the ten applicant guidebook topics listed in this proceeding. Specifically, ICANN org has published the following draft sections for input*:*
- Subsequent Application Rounds (Topic 3: Applications Assessed in Rounds) - Background Screening (Topic 22: Registrant Protections) - String Similarity Review (Topic 24: String Similarity Evaluations) - Internationalized Domain Names (Topic 25: IDNs) - Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation (Topic 33: Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation) - Registrar-Non-Discrimination / Registry/Registrar Standardization (Topic 37: Registrar Non-Discrimination / Registry/Registrar Standardization) - Registrar Support for New gTLDs (Topic 38: Registrar Support for New gTLDs) - Root Zone Label Generation Rules (Topic 25: IDNs) - Closed Generics (Topic 23: Closed Generics)
If you wish to volunteer, please email staff@atlarge.icann.org. Please see the At-Large Workspace <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Seco...> for this proceeding for the draft ALAC/At-Large public comment submission form. This public comment proceeding will be revisited during next week's CPWG call on 18 September 2024. This public comment proceeding will close on 21 October 2024.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Please let us know if you have any questions.
Kind regards,
At-Large Staff
At-Large Staff
ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community
Website: 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>
[image: signature_1936264891]
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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 (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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 (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.
Hi, Thanks to Cheryl for remembering and Bill for doing the check. Hearing from other topic specialists clearing sections of significant concern would be a good thing. avri On 2024-09-19 17:11, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
As a follow up on this Bill Jouris undertook an action item in the call, to review the String Similarly topic 24 text, and has done so sending me his feedback. Whilst it is not text written with the clarity and simplicity he would prefer, he sees no issues worthy of flagging as concerns. Therefore is not proposing a response to the PC on this topic.
Thank you for your very prompt attention to this Bill we appreciate it very much.
CLO
On Fri, 20 Sept 2024, 03:15 avri--- via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi,
This is a follow up based on discussion at the CPWG meeting on 18 Sept.
To start, I argued that instead of trying to write a review of each section of the AGB in public comment, we look at this public comment as one where we comment on anything that is problematic with the sections under review. There was some discussion, but this approach seemed acceptable to those in the meeting. I had not prepared the ground for this discussion adequately, surprised some of the active participants, and therefore committed to writing this explanatory follow up note to the CPWG.
This, in no way, means that these are less important that the content of other public reviews. Rather, it takes into account the degree of work that has gone into these, including the extensive discussions in the IRT in which the ALAC members (Cheryl & Justine) were rather active.
I emphasized that given the long and careful process this text had gone though in getting to this point, that we should focus on several things in determining whether to write a comment or not:
* Did our members in the group (C&J) have any strong issue with the outcome. In other words are there any issues that did not conclude successfully in their view that they believe need to be commented on in the public comment period. Any such issues would, normally be something we would comment on. As far as I know, no such issues were raised - but please, Justine and Cheryl, correct me.
* In reading these 10 draft sections of the AGB (listed below), did any participants in the CPWG see any issues that they felt fell inside the ALAC purview (effect on end users, detrimental to ICANN, contra the bylaws, &c.) that they felt needed to be fixed, if possible. This had been the task for this session as advertised the week before.
* Only one AGB section was mentioned as possibly having an issue: IDN. During the meeting one proponent had connection difficulties and it was hard to understand their issue. Another issue brought up in chat, seemed to be more about UA issues than the AGB. But there is an open invitation for someone to write up a quick paragraph explaining the issue so that it can get full consideration if it is still an issue.
As things stand at the moment, we have no public comments in process of being written. The thought coming out of the meeting was for me to solicit again, this time to the list:
Does anyone have an issue after reading one of the 10 sections of the draft section of the AGB that they feel:
* Has a possible adverse effect on end users? * Has another detrimental effect, whether on the AC, ICANN, or the Internet that falls within the ALAC purview as commonly understood, that needs public comment.
If the answer is yes to either of these questions, I request that you respond to this email with:
* Reference to the section of the AGB under public comment that is problematic * A paragraph explaining the problem and the change desired.
These can then be collected, amplified, and put before the group for a decision moving forward.
While the public comment is on a tight and non extensible schedule, we still have time. A draft is not due to the CPWG until 9 Oct. I want to make sure that if there is something that needs to be commented on, it is commented upon, without taking on work that does not need to be done. If the 10 sections of AGB are good, lets rejoice and move on.
This topic will be on the agenda again at our next meeting on 25 Oct and every meeting after that until is it too late. Please come ready if you believe that there is something to be to be included in a public comment.
thanks
avri
On 2024-09-11 18:50, ICANN At-Large Staff via CPWG wrote:
Dear CPWG Members,
As mentioned during the 11 September 2024 [1] CPWG call, please find linked the public comment proceeding information for the Second Proceeding for Proposed Language for Draft Sections of the Next Round Applicant Guidebook [2]. The CPWG is conducting a call for volunteers to help review and comment on the ten applicant guidebook topics listed in this proceeding. Specifically, ICANN org has published the following draft sections for input:
* Subsequent Application Rounds (Topic 3: Applications Assessed in Rounds) * Background Screening (Topic 22: Registrant Protections) * String Similarity Review (Topic 24: String Similarity Evaluations) * Internationalized Domain Names (Topic 25: IDNs) * Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation (Topic 33: Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation) * Registrar-Non-Discrimination / Registry/Registrar Standardization (Topic 37: Registrar Non-Discrimination / Registry/Registrar Standardization) * Registrar Support for New gTLDs (Topic 38: Registrar Support for New gTLDs) * Root Zone Label Generation Rules (Topic 25: IDNs) * Closed Generics (Topic 23: Closed Generics)
If you wish to volunteer, please email staff@atlarge.icann.org. Please see the At-Large Workspace [3] for this proceeding for the draft ALAC/At-Large public comment submission form. This public comment proceeding will be revisited during next week's CPWG call on 18 September 2024. This public comment proceeding will close on 21 October 2024.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Please let us know if you have any questions.
Kind regards,
At-Large Staff
At-Large Staff
ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community
Website: atlarge.icann.org [4]
Facebook: facebook.com/icann [5]atlarge [5]
Twitter: @ [6]ICANNAtLarge [6]
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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 (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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 (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.
Links: ------ [1] https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=373063821 [2] https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/second-proceeding-for-pro... [3] https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Seco... [4] https://atlarge.icann.org/ [5] https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge [6] https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge
participants (3)
-
avri＠doria.org -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
ICANN At-Large Staff