Dear DG Members, Staff and the Co-Chairs have worked on editing the DG¹s set of deliverables to incorporate suggestions from members as well as other updates. Please review the attached documents (also available on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables) ahead of the DG¹s next call on 27 April 2015. * Executive Summary: Adjusted the language to acknowledge that the DG's set of deliverables is slightly different than originally conceived. * Issues/Recommendations Matrix: Integrated the Board Resolution: Annex A (yellow text) and GDD Staff input paper (green text) into the matrix to ensure that the thoughts are not lost, while being sure to differentiate between the issues raised by the DG. * Draft Charter: Made some requested changes based on the 13 April call, which includes:
* Noting that the work should consider past efforts and that existing recommendations remain in place unless the GNSO changes them * Strengthening language to allow for some level of flexibility in the charter for a future PDP(s) WG * Allow for the possibility that there may not be any subsequent procedures We look forward to discussion of these documents on list as well as during the next DG call.
Best, Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649
Hi, A few comments in the abstract and a few additions to the table, though I do not know if I got them in the right place or worded them adequately for out charter. I am still collecting comments from people. avri On 22-Apr-15 20:36, Steve Chan wrote:
Dear DG Members,
Staff and the Co-Chairs have worked on editing the DG’s set of deliverables to incorporate suggestions from members as well as other updates. Please review the attached documents (also available on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables) ahead of the DG’s next call on 27 April 2015.
* Executive Summary: Adjusted the language to acknowledge that the DG's set of deliverables is slightly different than originally conceived. * Issues/Recommendations Matrix: Integrated the Board Resolution: Annex A (yellow text) and GDD Staff input paper (green text) into the matrix to ensure that the thoughts are not lost, while being sure to differentiate between the issues raised by the DG. * Draft Charter: Made some requested changes based on the 13 April call, which includes: o Noting that the work should consider past efforts and that existing recommendations remain in place unless the GNSO changes them o Strengthening language to allow for some level of flexibility in the charter for a future PDP(s) WG o Allow for the possibility that there may not be any subsequent procedures
We look forward to discussion of these documents on list as well as during the next DG call.
Best,
*Steven Chan* Sr. Policy Manager
*ICANN *12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410
tel: +1.310.301.5800
fax: +1.310.823.8649
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Thank you for a useful discussion today. I attach some small edits to the charter. A couple add some context to the questions already asked. A couple are new or add a specific to a previous more general issue. I hope the group supports. Philip
All, Given that diversity was a big issue on the call today, I wanted to share summary I did of community applications in this round, because it speaks so directly to the notion. This is quite an old analysis and reflects my own views on the matter only. Hope it is informative in providing context to the discussions. Best, Jacob. Jacob Malthouse Co-founder & Director, Big Room Inc. 778-960-6527 www.bigroom.ca On 27 April 2015 at 10:02, BRG <philip@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Thank you for a useful discussion today.
I attach some small edits to the charter. A couple add some context to the questions already asked. A couple are new or add a specific to a previous more general issue.
I hope the group supports.
Philip
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Dear Steve, I will not be able to join your call later today, and will send in my comments (if I have any) by e-mail. Please accept my apologies, and best wishes for a successful meeting. Katim On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:
Dear DG Members,
Staff and the Co-Chairs have worked on editing the DG’s set of deliverables to incorporate suggestions from members as well as other updates. Please review the attached documents (also available on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables) ahead of the DG’s next call on 27 April 2015.
- Executive Summary: Adjusted the language to acknowledge that the DG's set of deliverables is slightly different than originally conceived. - Issues/Recommendations Matrix: Integrated the Board Resolution: Annex A (yellow text) and GDD Staff input paper (green text) into the matrix to ensure that the thoughts are not lost, while being sure to differentiate between the issues raised by the DG. - Draft Charter: Made some requested changes based on the 13 April call, which includes: - Noting that the work should consider past efforts and that existing recommendations remain in place unless the GNSO changes them - Strengthening language to allow for some level of flexibility in the charter for a future PDP(s) WG - Allow for the possibility that there may not be any subsequent procedures
We look forward to discussion of these documents on list as well as during the next DG call.
Best,
*Steven Chan* Sr. Policy Manager
*ICANN*12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org
direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410
tel: +1.310.301.5800
fax: +1.310.823.8649
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Dear Steve, I will not be able to join your call today, and will send (if any) my comments by e-mail. Sorry . Regards Alain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway **************************************************
All, Apologies for missing today's call. Considerable CPE guidance that was provided in past versions was deleted from this version. Why is this? One aspect not discussed yet but that should be included in this is the awareness raising component at the start of the program. Was it communicated effectively? Could that be improved? How? Here are some comments on the spreadsheet track changes in the summary are attached. *Dispute resolution and challenge processes must be established prior to the start of the process.* *A clear explanation of the interplay between ICANN accountability mechanisms and the New gTLD program should be scoped and explained, with stress testing and worst case scenarios examined and published. * *An application will be rejected if an expert panel determines that there is substantial opposition to it from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted.* *The words 'substantial' and 'significant' as well as 'explicit' and 'implict' require practical definitions and precise testing processes. * *The application process will provide a pre-defined roadmap for applicants that encourages the submission of applications for new top-level domains.* *See point 1 regarding interplay between accountability mechanisms. Note that the CWG Accountability initial proposal considers a broad expansion to the DIDP and RfR processes. --- Don't pretend this isn't going to be an issue for some/many applicants and ICANN because it sure as heck is currently... * *GDD Question: Can additional guidance be provided on demonstrating (community) qualifications to earn preference?* *Recommend convening an expert panel of independent community experts (notably social scientists, economists, anthropologists and geographers) to assist the group in developing an appropriate science based evaluation. * Jacob Malthouse Co-founder & Director, Big Room Inc. 778-960-6527 www.bigroom.ca On 27 April 2015 at 06:52, Artero, Alain <artero@ebu.ch> wrote:
Dear Steve,
I will not be able to join your call today, and will send (if any) my comments by e-mail.
Sorry .
Regards
Alain
------------------------------
* ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** *
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Considerable CPE guidance that was provided in past versions was deleted from this version. Why is this?
Jacob, I am not aware that anything was deleted. We did have an appreciated set of issues in the draft charter, but included language in the draft charter that the controlling document was the issue report. Were you referencing not seeing the CPE issue in the Charter itself, or did you think that it was deleted from the issue report itself? we have redlines and versioning in the documents on the wiki, so we should be able to resurrect this. These are indeed important issues and I want to make sure they get into the documents where they need to be. Bret
Hi Bret, thanks for following up. My question was regarding the matrix, and on taking a second look the guidance is still there, it's just hidden unless you click on the square. Best, Jacob. On 28 April 2015 at 10:42, Bret Fausett <bret@uniregistry.link> wrote:
Considerable CPE guidance that was provided in past versions was deleted from this version. Why is this?
Jacob, I am not aware that anything was deleted. We did have an appreciated set of issues in the draft charter, but included language in the draft charter that the controlling document was the issue report. Were you referencing not seeing the CPE issue in the Charter itself, or did you think that it was deleted from the issue report itself? we have redlines and versioning in the documents on the wiki, so we should be able to resurrect this. These are indeed important issues and I want to make sure they get into the documents where they need to be.
Bret
participants (7)
-
Artero, Alain -
Avri Doria -
Bret Fausett -
BRG -
Jacob Malthouse -
Katim S. Touray -
Steve Chan