Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
All, I have made the following updates to the draft charter: * Incorporated the suggestion from Donna Austin from 27 May * Made the change suggested by Philip Sheppard and the BRG, although I made it far more general because as Philip noted, the set of circumstances described would not be limited to just .brands. * Regarding the comments from Thomas Lowenhaupt, I did not make a change in the charter, but instead made a change in the matrix, where I included a link to Thomas¹ Wiki post about Informed Consent, so that it can be considered in full by a possible WG. The latest versions are attached and also available on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables. If there are any disagreements with how the items have been captured, do of course let me know and I¹ll be happy to update. When we reach the finish line, I¹ll once again integrate the DG's three documents into a single, clean document. Best, Steve From: "philip@brandregistrygroup.org" <philip@brandregistrygroup.org> Date: Monday, June 1, 2015 at 3:46 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Steve, Jeff, Bret, a BRG member has made this suggestion which I think could be wider than just .brands. Could you agree to add it to the Charter maybe in Section II, Group 1, around the bullet "Different TLD Types? Feel free to turn the text into the style of the Charter. Philip Sheppard Director General Brand Registry Group www.brandregistrygroup.org <http://www.brandregistrygroup.org> ---------------------------- Application by a previous applicant In case a (.brand) RO (from the first round) applies for another (.brand) gTLD in the subsequent application window, certain requirements of the application could be shortened, reduced of even omitted (e.g., financial, technical, administrative, etc.) in case such RO is duly fulfilling its current RA and running its (.brand) gTLD. It seems some time could be saved during the application process if ICANN validates most of the the RO information.
Steve, all I have a question regarding 'Variable fees' the last dot point under Group 1 of the Charter. Does that refer to Application Fees or fees in the registry agreement? Thanks Donna From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Monday, 1 June 2015 3:56 PM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant All, I have made the following updates to the draft charter: * Incorporated the suggestion from Donna Austin from 27 May * Made the change suggested by Philip Sheppard and the BRG, although I made it far more general because as Philip noted, the set of circumstances described would not be limited to just .brands. * Regarding the comments from Thomas Lowenhaupt, I did not make a change in the charter, but instead made a change in the matrix, where I included a link to Thomas' Wiki post about Informed Consent, so that it can be considered in full by a possible WG. The latest versions are attached and also available on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables. If there are any disagreements with how the items have been captured, do of course let me know and I'll be happy to update. When we reach the finish line, I'll once again integrate the DG's three documents into a single, clean document. Best, Steve From: "philip@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:philip@brandregistrygroup.org>" <philip@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:philip@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, June 1, 2015 at 3:46 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Steve, Jeff, Bret, a BRG member has made this suggestion which I think could be wider than just .brands. Could you agree to add it to the Charter maybe in Section II, Group 1, around the bullet "Different TLD Types? Feel free to turn the text into the style of the Charter. Philip Sheppard Director General Brand Registry Group www.brandregistrygroup.org<http://www.brandregistrygroup.org> ---------------------------- Application by a previous applicant In case a (.brand) RO (from the first round) applies for another (.brand) gTLD in the subsequent application window, certain requirements of the application could be shortened, reduced of even omitted (e.g., financial, technical, administrative, etc.) in case such RO is duly fulfilling its current RA and running its (.brand) gTLD. It seems some time could be saved during the application process if ICANN validates most of the the RO information.
Donna, Thanks for the catch always good to add clarity. My understanding is that the ³Variable fees² section relates to the application fee whereas underneath ³Different TLD Types,² variable annual RA agreement fees could be considered. As such, I¹ve made the following simple edits in a new working draft that I will once again circulate as additional suggestions arrive.
* Different TLD Types: Does the one-size-fits-all application and review process hamper innovation? Should things such as the application process, requirements, annual fees, contractual requirements, etc. be variable based on the TLD type? Should an existing Registry Operator, that is fulfilling the requirements of its Registry Agreement, be subject to a different, more streamlined, application process? * Variable fees: Should the application fee be variable based on such factors as application type (such as open or closed registries), multiple identical applications, etc.?
Hopefully this addresses your concerns although if not, please feel free to suggest specific edits. Best, Steve From: Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 12:05 PM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Steve, all I have a question regarding Variable fees¹ the last dot point under Group 1 of the Charter. Does that refer to Application Fees or fees in the registry agreement? Thanks Donna From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Monday, 1 June 2015 3:56 PM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant All, I have made the following updates to the draft charter: * Incorporated the suggestion from Donna Austin from 27 May * Made the change suggested by Philip Sheppard and the BRG, although I made it far more general because as Philip noted, the set of circumstances described would not be limited to just .brands. * Regarding the comments from Thomas Lowenhaupt, I did not make a change in the charter, but instead made a change in the matrix, where I included a link to Thomas¹ Wiki post about Informed Consent, so that it can be considered in full by a possible WG. The latest versions are attached and also available on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables. If there are any disagreements with how the items have been captured, do of course let me know and I¹ll be happy to update. When we reach the finish line, I¹ll once again integrate the DG's three documents into a single, clean document. Best, Steve From: "philip@brandregistrygroup.org" <philip@brandregistrygroup.org> Date: Monday, June 1, 2015 at 3:46 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Steve, Jeff, Bret, a BRG member has made this suggestion which I think could be wider than just .brands. Could you agree to add it to the Charter maybe in Section II, Group 1, around the bullet "Different TLD Types? Feel free to turn the text into the style of the Charter. Philip Sheppard Director General Brand Registry Group www.brandregistrygroup.org <http://www.brandregistrygroup.org> ---------------------------- Application by a previous applicant In case a (.brand) RO (from the first round) applies for another (.brand) gTLD in the subsequent application window, certain requirements of the application could be shortened, reduced of even omitted (e.g., financial, technical, administrative, etc.) in case such RO is duly fulfilling its current RA and running its (.brand) gTLD. It seems some time could be saved during the application process if ICANN validates most of the the RO information.
Steve, All I have another question-sorry As we all know the GAC has a working group on Geographic Names, which seems to be intent on expanding the definition to include potentially thousands of strings. The AGB had a moratorium on the ability to apply for country/territory names at the top level in the first round. Is it the intention of the DG that this be picked up as part of the next round PDP, or perhaps dealt with as a distinct and separate issue elsewhere. Apologies if this has been covered previously and I missed it. Thanks, Donna [Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne | Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655 P +61 3 9866 3710 E donna.austin@ariservices.com<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Monday, 1 June 2015 3:56 PM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant All, I have made the following updates to the draft charter: * Incorporated the suggestion from Donna Austin from 27 May * Made the change suggested by Philip Sheppard and the BRG, although I made it far more general because as Philip noted, the set of circumstances described would not be limited to just .brands. * Regarding the comments from Thomas Lowenhaupt, I did not make a change in the charter, but instead made a change in the matrix, where I included a link to Thomas' Wiki post about Informed Consent, so that it can be considered in full by a possible WG. The latest versions are attached and also available on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables. If there are any disagreements with how the items have been captured, do of course let me know and I'll be happy to update. When we reach the finish line, I'll once again integrate the DG's three documents into a single, clean document. Best, Steve From: "philip@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:philip@brandregistrygroup.org>" <philip@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:philip@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, June 1, 2015 at 3:46 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Steve, Jeff, Bret, a BRG member has made this suggestion which I think could be wider than just .brands. Could you agree to add it to the Charter maybe in Section II, Group 1, around the bullet "Different TLD Types? Feel free to turn the text into the style of the Charter. Philip Sheppard Director General Brand Registry Group www.brandregistrygroup.org<http://www.brandregistrygroup.org> ---------------------------- Application by a previous applicant In case a (.brand) RO (from the first round) applies for another (.brand) gTLD in the subsequent application window, certain requirements of the application could be shortened, reduced of even omitted (e.g., financial, technical, administrative, etc.) in case such RO is duly fulfilling its current RA and running its (.brand) gTLD. It seems some time could be saved during the application process if ICANN validates most of the the RO information.
Dear Donna, Thank you for your note. There is currently a Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains (see here <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48346463> ) working on at least part of this issue. You might recall that Heather provided an update to the GNSO Council as the Group¹s co-Chair during the last Council call (transcript here <http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-21may15-en.pdf> ). To assure you, and others, the Group is very much aware of the GAC¹s work and is trying to coordinate their respective efforts to avoid a situation where the GAC¹s potential future advise on geographic names conflicts with anything the CWG is producing. Please note that the CWG is meeting bi-weekly and the number of GNSO members is not as prominent as it could be - as also pointed out by Heather. In addition, Heather will send out a call to the GNSO Council to provide informal feedback on the CWG¹s work, including the potential overlap with the GAC¹s work later today; any feedback you and others can provide will be most welcome in the CWG¹s discussions. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars From: Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> Date: Wednesday, 3 June 2015 01:49 To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, "<gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Steve, All I have another questionsorry As we all know the GAC has a working group on Geographic Names, which seems to be intent on expanding the definition to include potentially thousands of strings. The AGB had a moratorium on the ability to apply for country/territory names at the top level in the first round. Is it the intention of the DG that this be picked up as part of the next round PDP, or perhaps dealt with as a distinct and separate issue elsewhere. Apologies if this has been covered previously and I missed it. Thanks, Donna DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne|Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655 P +61 3 9866 3710 E donna.austin@ariservices.com <mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com <http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter <https://twitter.com/ARIservices> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Monday, 1 June 2015 3:56 PM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant All, I have made the following updates to the draft charter: * Incorporated the suggestion from Donna Austin from 27 May * Made the change suggested by Philip Sheppard and the BRG, although I made it far more general because as Philip noted, the set of circumstances described would not be limited to just .brands. * Regarding the comments from Thomas Lowenhaupt, I did not make a change in the charter, but instead made a change in the matrix, where I included a link to Thomas¹ Wiki post about Informed Consent, so that it can be considered in full by a possible WG. The latest versions are attached and also available on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables. If there are any disagreements with how the items have been captured, do of course let me know and I¹ll be happy to update. When we reach the finish line, I¹ll once again integrate the DG's three documents into a single, clean document. Best, Steve From: "philip@brandregistrygroup.org" <philip@brandregistrygroup.org> Date: Monday, June 1, 2015 at 3:46 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Steve, Jeff, Bret, a BRG member has made this suggestion which I think could be wider than just .brands. Could you agree to add it to the Charter maybe in Section II, Group 1, around the bullet "Different TLD Types? Feel free to turn the text into the style of the Charter. Philip Sheppard Director General Brand Registry Group www.brandregistrygroup.org <http://www.brandregistrygroup.org> ---------------------------- Application by a previous applicant In case a (.brand) RO (from the first round) applies for another (.brand) gTLD in the subsequent application window, certain requirements of the application could be shortened, reduced of even omitted (e.g., financial, technical, administrative, etc.) in case such RO is duly fulfilling its current RA and running its (.brand) gTLD. It seems some time could be saved during the application process if ICANN validates most of the the RO information.
Hi Lars Thank you, I am aware of the work Heather and the CCWG are undertaking, but I wasn't sure if there was overlap into the work of this group. My concern is that the CCWG is restricting it's considerations to country and territory names at the top level and the AGB had other requirements, for example relating to capital cities and continents. Therefore I think there may be some value in the DG including in the Charter a review of the geographic names or something along those lines. Donna From: Lars Hoffmann [mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2015 12:43 AM To: Donna Austin; Steve Chan; gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Dear Donna, Thank you for your note. There is currently a Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains (see here<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48346463>) working on at least part of this issue. You might recall that Heather provided an update to the GNSO Council as the Group's co-Chair during the last Council call (transcript here<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-21may15-en.pdf>). To assure you, and others, the Group is very much aware of the GAC's work and is trying to coordinate their respective efforts to avoid a situation where the GAC's potential future advise on geographic names conflicts with anything the CWG is producing. Please note that the CWG is meeting bi-weekly and the number of GNSO members is not as prominent as it could be - as also pointed out by Heather. In addition, Heather will send out a call to the GNSO Council to provide informal feedback on the CWG's work, including the potential overlap with the GAC's work later today; any feedback you - and others - can provide will be most welcome in the CWG's discussions. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars From: Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>> Date: Wednesday, 3 June 2015 01:49 To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>, "<gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>>" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Steve, All I have another question-sorry As we all know the GAC has a working group on Geographic Names, which seems to be intent on expanding the definition to include potentially thousands of strings. The AGB had a moratorium on the ability to apply for country/territory names at the top level in the first round. Is it the intention of the DG that this be picked up as part of the next round PDP, or perhaps dealt with as a distinct and separate issue elsewhere. Apologies if this has been covered previously and I missed it. Thanks, Donna [Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne|Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655 P +61 3 9866 3710 E donna.austin@ariservices.com<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Monday, 1 June 2015 3:56 PM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant All, I have made the following updates to the draft charter: * Incorporated the suggestion from Donna Austin from 27 May * Made the change suggested by Philip Sheppard and the BRG, although I made it far more general because as Philip noted, the set of circumstances described would not be limited to just .brands. * Regarding the comments from Thomas Lowenhaupt, I did not make a change in the charter, but instead made a change in the matrix, where I included a link to Thomas' Wiki post about Informed Consent, so that it can be considered in full by a possible WG. The latest versions are attached and also available on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables. If there are any disagreements with how the items have been captured, do of course let me know and I'll be happy to update. When we reach the finish line, I'll once again integrate the DG's three documents into a single, clean document. Best, Steve From: "philip@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:philip@brandregistrygroup.org>" <philip@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:philip@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, June 1, 2015 at 3:46 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Steve, Jeff, Bret, a BRG member has made this suggestion which I think could be wider than just .brands. Could you agree to add it to the Charter maybe in Section II, Group 1, around the bullet "Different TLD Types? Feel free to turn the text into the style of the Charter. Philip Sheppard Director General Brand Registry Group www.brandregistrygroup.org<http://www.brandregistrygroup.org> ---------------------------- Application by a previous applicant In case a (.brand) RO (from the first round) applies for another (.brand) gTLD in the subsequent application window, certain requirements of the application could be shortened, reduced of even omitted (e.g., financial, technical, administrative, etc.) in case such RO is duly fulfilling its current RA and running its (.brand) gTLD. It seems some time could be saved during the application process if ICANN validates most of the the RO information.
+1 I think there may be some value in the DG including in the Charter a review of the geographic names restrictions in the AGB. Thanks Donna for raising the issue. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> wrote:
Hi Lars
Thank you, I am aware of the work Heather and the CCWG are undertaking, but I wasn’t sure if there was overlap into the work of this group.
My concern is that the CCWG is restricting it’s considerations to country and territory names at the top level and the AGB had other requirements, for example relating to capital cities and continents. Therefore I think there may be some value in the DG including in the Charter a review of the geographic names or something along those lines.
Donna
*From:* Lars Hoffmann [mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org] *Sent:* Wednesday, 3 June 2015 12:43 AM *To:* Donna Austin; Steve Chan; gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
Dear Donna,
Thank you for your note. There is currently a Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains (see here <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48346463>) working on at least part of this issue. You might recall that Heather provided an update to the GNSO Council as the Group’s co-Chair during the last Council call (transcript here <http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-21may15-en.pdf>). To assure you, and others, the Group is very much aware of the GAC’s work and is trying to coordinate their respective efforts to avoid a situation where the GAC’s potential future advise on geographic names conflicts with anything the CWG is producing. Please note that the CWG is meeting bi-weekly and the number of GNSO members is not as prominent as it could be - as also pointed out by Heather.
In addition, Heather will send out a call to the GNSO Council to provide informal feedback on the CWG’s work, including the potential overlap with the GAC’s work later today; any feedback you – and others – can provide will be most welcome in the CWG’s discussions.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Lars
*From: *Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> *Date: *Wednesday, 3 June 2015 01:49 *To: *Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, "<gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
Steve, All
I have another question—sorry
As we all know the GAC has a working group on Geographic Names, which seems to be intent on expanding the definition to include potentially thousands of strings. The AGB had a moratorium on the ability to apply for country/territory names at the top level in the first round.
Is it the intention of the DG that this be picked up as part of the next round PDP, or perhaps dealt with as a distinct and separate issue elsewhere.
Apologies if this has been covered previously and I missed it.
Thanks,
Donna
[image: Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]*D**ONNA AUSTIN* Policy and Industry Affairs Manager
*ARI REGISTRY SERVICES* Melbourne*|*Los Angeles *P* +1 310 890 9655 *P* +61 3 9866 3710 *E* donna.austin@ariservices.com *W* www.ariservices.com
*Follow us on **Twitter* <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
*The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.*
*From:* gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Steve Chan *Sent:* Monday, 1 June 2015 3:56 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
All,
I have made the following updates to the draft charter:
- Incorporated the suggestion from Donna Austin from 27 May - Made the change suggested by Philip Sheppard and the BRG, although I made it far more general because as Philip noted, the set of circumstances described would not be limited to just .brands. - Regarding the comments from Thomas Lowenhaupt, I did not make a change in the charter, but instead made a change in the matrix, where I included a link to Thomas’ Wiki post about Informed Consent, so that it can be considered in full by a possible WG.
The latest versions are attached and also available on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables. If there are any disagreements with how the items have been captured, do of course let me know and I’ll be happy to update.
When we reach the finish line, I’ll once again integrate the DG's three documents into a single, clean document.
Best,
Steve
*From: *"philip@brandregistrygroup.org" <philip@brandregistrygroup.org> *Date: *Monday, June 1, 2015 at 3:46 AM *To: *"gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
Steve, Jeff, Bret,
a BRG member has made this suggestion which I think could be wider than just .brands. Could you agree to add it to the Charter maybe in Section II, Group 1, around the bullet "*Different TLD Types*? Feel free to turn the text into the style of the Charter.
Philip Sheppard
Director General
Brand Registry Group
www.brandregistrygroup.org
----------------------------
*Application by a previous applicant*
In case a (.brand) RO (from the first round) applies for another (.brand) gTLD in the subsequent application window, certain requirements of the application could be shortened, reduced of even omitted (e.g., financial, technical, administrative, etc.) in case such RO is duly fulfilling its current RA and running its (.brand) gTLD. It seems some time could be saved during the application process if ICANN validates most of the the RO information.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Hi Donna, I totally agree with your and Mike’s comment. The issues surrounding re Round 1 applicants .spa ( as in a spa / Belgium city) .london (as in UK and Canada) .patagonia( as in country / clothing company) and of course .amazon need to resolved / clarified prior to Round 2 . I would also include the issue surrounding two letter TLDs – which stopped the likes of Hewlett Packard applying for .HP Thanks Phil Phil Buckingham CEO, Dot Advice Limited From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 04 June 2015 01:55 To: Donna Austin Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant +1 I think there may be some value in the DG including in the Charter a review of the geographic names restrictions in the AGB. Thanks Donna for raising the issue. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> wrote: Hi Lars Thank you, I am aware of the work Heather and the CCWG are undertaking, but I wasn’t sure if there was overlap into the work of this group. My concern is that the CCWG is restricting it’s considerations to country and territory names at the top level and the AGB had other requirements, for example relating to capital cities and continents. Therefore I think there may be some value in the DG including in the Charter a review of the geographic names or something along those lines. Donna From: Lars Hoffmann [mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2015 12:43 AM To: Donna Austin; Steve Chan; gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Dear Donna, Thank you for your note. There is currently a Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains (see here <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48346463> ) working on at least part of this issue. You might recall that Heather provided an update to the GNSO Council as the Group’s co-Chair during the last Council call (transcript here <http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-21may15-en.pdf> ). To assure you, and others, the Group is very much aware of the GAC’s work and is trying to coordinate their respective efforts to avoid a situation where the GAC’s potential future advise on geographic names conflicts with anything the CWG is producing. Please note that the CWG is meeting bi-weekly and the number of GNSO members is not as prominent as it could be - as also pointed out by Heather. In addition, Heather will send out a call to the GNSO Council to provide informal feedback on the CWG’s work, including the potential overlap with the GAC’s work later today; any feedback you – and others – can provide will be most welcome in the CWG’s discussions. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars From: Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> Date: Wednesday, 3 June 2015 01:49 To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, "<gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Steve, All I have another question—sorry As we all know the GAC has a working group on Geographic Names, which seems to be intent on expanding the definition to include potentially thousands of strings. The AGB had a moratorium on the ability to apply for country/territory names at the top level in the first round. Is it the intention of the DG that this be picked up as part of the next round PDP, or perhaps dealt with as a distinct and separate issue elsewhere. Apologies if this has been covered previously and I missed it. Thanks, Donna Description: Description: Description: ARI LogoDONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne|Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655 <tel:%2B1%20310%20890%209655> P +61 3 9866 3710 <tel:%2B61%203%209866%203710> E <mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> donna.austin@ariservices.com W <http://www.ariservices.com/> www.ariservices.com Follow us on <https://twitter.com/ARIservices> Twitter The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Monday, 1 June 2015 3:56 PM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant All, I have made the following updates to the draft charter: * Incorporated the suggestion from Donna Austin from 27 May * Made the change suggested by Philip Sheppard and the BRG, although I made it far more general because as Philip noted, the set of circumstances described would not be limited to just .brands. * Regarding the comments from Thomas Lowenhaupt, I did not make a change in the charter, but instead made a change in the matrix, where I included a link to Thomas’ Wiki post about Informed Consent, so that it can be considered in full by a possible WG. The latest versions are attached and also available on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables. If there are any disagreements with how the items have been captured, do of course let me know and I’ll be happy to update. When we reach the finish line, I’ll once again integrate the DG's three documents into a single, clean document. Best, Steve From: "philip@brandregistrygroup.org" <philip@brandregistrygroup.org> Date: Monday, June 1, 2015 at 3:46 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Steve, Jeff, Bret, a BRG member has made this suggestion which I think could be wider than just .brands. Could you agree to add it to the Charter maybe in Section II, Group 1, around the bullet "Different TLD Types? Feel free to turn the text into the style of the Charter. Philip Sheppard Director General Brand Registry Group www.brandregistrygroup.org ---------------------------- Application by a previous applicant In case a (.brand) RO (from the first round) applies for another (.brand) gTLD in the subsequent application window, certain requirements of the application could be shortened, reduced of even omitted (e.g., financial, technical, administrative, etc.) in case such RO is duly fulfilling its current RA and running its (.brand) gTLD. It seems some time could be saved during the application process if ICANN validates most of the the RO information. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Dear Phil, Just a quick note that the CWG on the Use of Country and Territory Names is dealing with the issue of two-letter top-level domains and it is an issue on which the ccNSO participants have clear views. This is not to discourage inclusion of this in the Charter, just a call for caution to prevent the development of duplicate and potentially contradictory policies or policy frameworks (the latter being what the CWG is charted to produce). Very best. Lars From: Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk> Date: Thursday, 4 June 2015 18:25 To: 'Mike Rodenbaugh' <mike@rodenbaugh.com>, 'Donna Austin' <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> Cc: "<gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Hi Donna, I totally agree with your and Mike¹s comment. The issues surrounding re Round 1 applicants .spa ( as in a spa / Belgium city) .london (as in UK and Canada) .patagonia( as in country / clothing company) and of course .amazon need to resolved / clarified prior to Round 2 . I would also include the issue surrounding two letter TLDs which stopped the likes of Hewlett Packard applying for .HP Thanks Phil Phil Buckingham CEO, Dot Advice Limited From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 04 June 2015 01:55 To: Donna Austin Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant +1 I think there may be some value in the DG including in the Charter a review of the geographic names restrictions in the AGB. Thanks Donna for raising the issue. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> wrote: Hi Lars Thank you, I am aware of the work Heather and the CCWG are undertaking, but I wasn¹t sure if there was overlap into the work of this group. My concern is that the CCWG is restricting it¹s considerations to country and territory names at the top level and the AGB had other requirements, for example relating to capital cities and continents. Therefore I think there may be some value in the DG including in the Charter a review of the geographic names or something along those lines. Donna From: Lars Hoffmann [mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2015 12:43 AM To: Donna Austin; Steve Chan; gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Dear Donna, Thank you for your note. There is currently a Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains (see here <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48346463> ) working on at least part of this issue. You might recall that Heather provided an update to the GNSO Council as the Group¹s co-Chair during the last Council call (transcript here <http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-21may15-en.pdf> ). To assure you, and others, the Group is very much aware of the GAC¹s work and is trying to coordinate their respective efforts to avoid a situation where the GAC¹s potential future advise on geographic names conflicts with anything the CWG is producing. Please note that the CWG is meeting bi-weekly and the number of GNSO members is not as prominent as it could be - as also pointed out by Heather. In addition, Heather will send out a call to the GNSO Council to provide informal feedback on the CWG¹s work, including the potential overlap with the GAC¹s work later today; any feedback you and others can provide will be most welcome in the CWG¹s discussions. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars From: Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> Date: Wednesday, 3 June 2015 01:49 To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, "<gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Steve, All I have another questionsorry As we all know the GAC has a working group on Geographic Names, which seems to be intent on expanding the definition to include potentially thousands of strings. The AGB had a moratorium on the ability to apply for country/territory names at the top level in the first round. Is it the intention of the DG that this be picked up as part of the next round PDP, or perhaps dealt with as a distinct and separate issue elsewhere. Apologies if this has been covered previously and I missed it. Thanks, Donna DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne|Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655 <tel:%2B1%20310%20890%209655> P +61 3 9866 3710 <tel:%2B61%203%209866%203710> E donna.austin@ariservices.com <mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com <http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter <https://twitter.com/ARIservices> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Monday, 1 June 2015 3:56 PM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant All, I have made the following updates to the draft charter: * Incorporated the suggestion from Donna Austin from 27 May * Made the change suggested by Philip Sheppard and the BRG, although I made it far more general because as Philip noted, the set of circumstances described would not be limited to just .brands. * Regarding the comments from Thomas Lowenhaupt, I did not make a change in the charter, but instead made a change in the matrix, where I included a link to Thomas¹ Wiki post about Informed Consent, so that it can be considered in full by a possible WG. The latest versions are attached and also available on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables. If there are any disagreements with how the items have been captured, do of course let me know and I¹ll be happy to update. When we reach the finish line, I¹ll once again integrate the DG's three documents into a single, clean document. Best, Steve From: "philip@brandregistrygroup.org" <philip@brandregistrygroup.org> Date: Monday, June 1, 2015 at 3:46 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Steve, Jeff, Bret, a BRG member has made this suggestion which I think could be wider than just .brands. Could you agree to add it to the Charter maybe in Section II, Group 1, around the bullet "Different TLD Types? Feel free to turn the text into the style of the Charter. Philip Sheppard Director General Brand Registry Group www.brandregistrygroup.org <http://www.brandregistrygroup.org> ---------------------------- Application by a previous applicant In case a (.brand) RO (from the first round) applies for another (.brand) gTLD in the subsequent application window, certain requirements of the application could be shortened, reduced of even omitted (e.g., financial, technical, administrative, etc.) in case such RO is duly fulfilling its current RA and running its (.brand) gTLD. It seems some time could be saved during the application process if ICANN validates most of the the RO information. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
It's definitely an important issue but I echo Lars' call to be sure we don't duplicate efforts. Perhaps a placeholder in this charter to incorporate the recommendations of the CWG? Thanks, Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Jun 4, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Phil, Just a quick note that the CWG on the Use of Country and Territory Names is dealing with the issue of two-letter top-level domains and it is an issue on which the ccNSO participants have clear views. This is not to discourage inclusion of this in the Charter, just a call for caution to prevent the development of duplicate and potentially contradictory policies or policy frameworks (the latter being what the CWG is charted to produce). Very best. Lars From: Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>> Date: Thursday, 4 June 2015 18:25 To: 'Mike Rodenbaugh' <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>, 'Donna Austin' <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>> Cc: "<gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>>" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Hi Donna, I totally agree with your and Mike’s comment. The issues surrounding re Round 1 applicants .spa ( as in a spa / Belgium city) .london (as in UK and Canada) .patagonia( as in country / clothing company) and of course .amazon need to resolved / clarified prior to Round 2 . I would also include the issue surrounding two letter TLDs – which stopped the likes of Hewlett Packard applying for .HP Thanks Phil Phil Buckingham CEO, Dot Advice Limited From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 04 June 2015 01:55 To: Donna Austin Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant +1 I think there may be some value in the DG including in the Charter a review of the geographic names restrictions in the AGB. Thanks Donna for raising the issue. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>> wrote: Hi Lars Thank you, I am aware of the work Heather and the CCWG are undertaking, but I wasn’t sure if there was overlap into the work of this group. My concern is that the CCWG is restricting it’s considerations to country and territory names at the top level and the AGB had other requirements, for example relating to capital cities and continents. Therefore I think there may be some value in the DG including in the Charter a review of the geographic names or something along those lines. Donna From: Lars Hoffmann [mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>] Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2015 12:43 AM To: Donna Austin; Steve Chan; gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Dear Donna, Thank you for your note. There is currently a Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains (see here<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48346463>) working on at least part of this issue. You might recall that Heather provided an update to the GNSO Council as the Group’s co-Chair during the last Council call (transcript here<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-21may15-en.pdf>). To assure you, and others, the Group is very much aware of the GAC’s work and is trying to coordinate their respective efforts to avoid a situation where the GAC’s potential future advise on geographic names conflicts with anything the CWG is producing. Please note that the CWG is meeting bi-weekly and the number of GNSO members is not as prominent as it could be - as also pointed out by Heather. In addition, Heather will send out a call to the GNSO Council to provide informal feedback on the CWG’s work, including the potential overlap with the GAC’s work later today; any feedback you – and others – can provide will be most welcome in the CWG’s discussions. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars From: Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>> Date: Wednesday, 3 June 2015 01:49 To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>, "<gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>>" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Steve, All I have another question—sorry As we all know the GAC has a working group on Geographic Names, which seems to be intent on expanding the definition to include potentially thousands of strings. The AGB had a moratorium on the ability to apply for country/territory names at the top level in the first round. Is it the intention of the DG that this be picked up as part of the next round PDP, or perhaps dealt with as a distinct and separate issue elsewhere. Apologies if this has been covered previously and I missed it. Thanks, Donna <image001.png>DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne|Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655<tel:%2B1%20310%20890%209655> P +61 3 9866 3710<tel:%2B61%203%209866%203710> E donna.austin@ariservices.com<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Monday, 1 June 2015 3:56 PM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant All, I have made the following updates to the draft charter: * Incorporated the suggestion from Donna Austin from 27 May * Made the change suggested by Philip Sheppard and the BRG, although I made it far more general because as Philip noted, the set of circumstances described would not be limited to just .brands. * Regarding the comments from Thomas Lowenhaupt, I did not make a change in the charter, but instead made a change in the matrix, where I included a link to Thomas’ Wiki post about Informed Consent, so that it can be considered in full by a possible WG. The latest versions are attached and also available on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables. If there are any disagreements with how the items have been captured, do of course let me know and I’ll be happy to update. When we reach the finish line, I’ll once again integrate the DG's three documents into a single, clean document. Best, Steve From: "philip@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:philip@brandregistrygroup.org>" <philip@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:philip@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, June 1, 2015 at 3:46 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Steve, Jeff, Bret, a BRG member has made this suggestion which I think could be wider than just .brands. Could you agree to add it to the Charter maybe in Section II, Group 1, around the bullet "Different TLD Types? Feel free to turn the text into the style of the Charter. Philip Sheppard Director General Brand Registry Group www.brandregistrygroup.org<http://www.brandregistrygroup.org> ---------------------------- Application by a previous applicant In case a (.brand) RO (from the first round) applies for another (.brand) gTLD in the subsequent application window, certain requirements of the application could be shortened, reduced of even omitted (e.g., financial, technical, administrative, etc.) in case such RO is duly fulfilling its current RA and running its (.brand) gTLD. It seems some time could be saved during the application process if ICANN validates most of the the RO information. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg <image001.png> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
I think we should evaluate the issues independently. It is entirely possible the GNSO could have different views than the CWG. And if there is GNSO Supermajority, then the Board presumptively must accept our recommendation, despite whatever the ccTLD-heavy CWG comes back with. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil < Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
It's definitely an important issue but I echo Lars' call to be sure we don't duplicate efforts. Perhaps a placeholder in this charter to incorporate the recommendations of the CWG?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Jun 4, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org<mailto: lars.hoffmann@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Phil, Just a quick note that the CWG on the Use of Country and Territory Names is dealing with the issue of two-letter top-level domains and it is an issue on which the ccNSO participants have clear views. This is not to discourage inclusion of this in the Charter, just a call for caution to prevent the development of duplicate and potentially contradictory policies or policy frameworks (the latter being what the CWG is charted to produce). Very best. Lars
From: Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>> Date: Thursday, 4 June 2015 18:25 To: 'Mike Rodenbaugh' <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>, 'Donna Austin' <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com<mailto: Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>> Cc: "<gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>>" < gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
Hi Donna,
I totally agree with your and Mike’s comment.
The issues surrounding re Round 1 applicants .spa ( as in a spa / Belgium city) .london (as in UK and Canada) .patagonia( as in country / clothing company) and of course .amazon need to resolved / clarified prior to Round 2 .
I would also include the issue surrounding two letter TLDs – which stopped the likes of Hewlett Packard applying for .HP
Thanks Phil
Phil Buckingham CEO, Dot Advice Limited
From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org<mailto: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 04 June 2015 01:55 To: Donna Austin Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
+1 I think there may be some value in the DG including in the Charter a review of the geographic names restrictions in the AGB. Thanks Donna for raising the issue.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Donna Austin < Donna.Austin@ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>> wrote: Hi Lars
Thank you, I am aware of the work Heather and the CCWG are undertaking, but I wasn’t sure if there was overlap into the work of this group.
My concern is that the CCWG is restricting it’s considerations to country and territory names at the top level and the AGB had other requirements, for example relating to capital cities and continents. Therefore I think there may be some value in the DG including in the Charter a review of the geographic names or something along those lines.
Donna
From: Lars Hoffmann [mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org<mailto: lars.hoffmann@icann.org>] Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2015 12:43 AM To: Donna Austin; Steve Chan; gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
Dear Donna,
Thank you for your note. There is currently a Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains (see here<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48346463>) working on at least part of this issue. You might recall that Heather provided an update to the GNSO Council as the Group’s co-Chair during the last Council call (transcript here< http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-21may15-en.pdf>). To assure you, and others, the Group is very much aware of the GAC’s work and is trying to coordinate their respective efforts to avoid a situation where the GAC’s potential future advise on geographic names conflicts with anything the CWG is producing. Please note that the CWG is meeting bi-weekly and the number of GNSO members is not as prominent as it could be - as also pointed out by Heather.
In addition, Heather will send out a call to the GNSO Council to provide informal feedback on the CWG’s work, including the potential overlap with the GAC’s work later today; any feedback you – and others – can provide will be most welcome in the CWG’s discussions.
Many thanks and best wishes, Lars
From: Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com<mailto: Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>> Date: Wednesday, 3 June 2015 01:49 To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>, "< gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>>" < gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
Steve, All
I have another question—sorry
As we all know the GAC has a working group on Geographic Names, which seems to be intent on expanding the definition to include potentially thousands of strings. The AGB had a moratorium on the ability to apply for country/territory names at the top level in the first round.
Is it the intention of the DG that this be picked up as part of the next round PDP, or perhaps dealt with as a distinct and separate issue elsewhere.
Apologies if this has been covered previously and I missed it.
Thanks,
Donna
<image001.png>DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager
ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne|Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655<tel:%2B1%20310%20890%209655> P +61 3 9866 3710<tel:%2B61%203%209866%203710> E donna.austin@ariservices.com<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/>
Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.
From:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org<mailto: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Monday, 1 June 2015 3:56 PM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
All,
I have made the following updates to the draft charter:
* Incorporated the suggestion from Donna Austin from 27 May * Made the change suggested by Philip Sheppard and the BRG, although I made it far more general because as Philip noted, the set of circumstances described would not be limited to just .brands. * Regarding the comments from Thomas Lowenhaupt, I did not make a change in the charter, but instead made a change in the matrix, where I included a link to Thomas’ Wiki post about Informed Consent, so that it can be considered in full by a possible WG. The latest versions are attached and also available on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables. If there are any disagreements with how the items have been captured, do of course let me know and I’ll be happy to update.
When we reach the finish line, I’ll once again integrate the DG's three documents into a single, clean document.
Best, Steve
From: "philip@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:philip@brandregistrygroup.org>" <philip@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:philip@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, June 1, 2015 at 3:46 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
Steve, Jeff, Bret,
a BRG member has made this suggestion which I think could be wider than just .brands. Could you agree to add it to the Charter maybe in Section II, Group 1, around the bullet "Different TLD Types? Feel free to turn the text into the style of the Charter.
Philip Sheppard Director General Brand Registry Group www.brandregistrygroup.org<http://www.brandregistrygroup.org>
----------------------------
Application by a previous applicant In case a (.brand) RO (from the first round) applies for another (.brand) gTLD in the subsequent application window, certain requirements of the application could be shortened, reduced of even omitted (e.g., financial, technical, administrative, etc.) in case such RO is duly fulfilling its current RA and running its (.brand) gTLD. It seems some time could be saved during the application process if ICANN validates most of the the RO information.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
<image001.png> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Dear Donna, Mike, Phil, Kiran, All, Noting all the points made by DG members, staff has drafted proposed additions to the draft charter text, which you will find below: * Reserved names list: Review the composition of the reserved names list to determine if additions, modifications, or subtractions are needed. Evaluate if the implementation matched expectations (e.g., recommendations of the Reserved Names Working Group). Review whether geographic names requirements properly balance the needs of governments or public authorities and potential applicants.
* Note, the GNSO/ccNSO-chartered Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains is focused on a policy framework for country and territory names and efforts should be made to avoid duplicative work. In addition, capital city names, city names, etc. may also warrant discussion.
We look forward to your review and comments. Best, Steve From: Lars HOFFMANN <Lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 9:51 AM To: Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk>, 'Mike Rodenbaugh' <mike@rodenbaugh.com>, 'Donna Austin' <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Dear Phil, Just a quick note that the CWG on the Use of Country and Territory Names is dealing with the issue of two-letter top-level domains and it is an issue on which the ccNSO participants have clear views. This is not to discourage inclusion of this in the Charter, just a call for caution to prevent the development of duplicate and potentially contradictory policies or policy frameworks (the latter being what the CWG is charted to produce). Very best. Lars From: Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk> Date: Thursday, 4 June 2015 18:25 To: 'Mike Rodenbaugh' <mike@rodenbaugh.com>, 'Donna Austin' <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> Cc: "<gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Hi Donna, I totally agree with your and Mike¹s comment. The issues surrounding re Round 1 applicants .spa ( as in a spa / Belgium city) .london (as in UK and Canada) .patagonia( as in country / clothing company) and of course .amazon need to resolved / clarified prior to Round 2 . I would also include the issue surrounding two letter TLDs which stopped the likes of Hewlett Packard applying for .HP Thanks Phil Phil Buckingham CEO, Dot Advice Limited From:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 04 June 2015 01:55 To: Donna Austin Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant +1 I think there may be some value in the DG including in the Charter a review of the geographic names restrictions in the AGB. Thanks Donna for raising the issue. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> wrote: Hi Lars Thank you, I am aware of the work Heather and the CCWG are undertaking, but I wasn¹t sure if there was overlap into the work of this group. My concern is that the CCWG is restricting it¹s considerations to country and territory names at the top level and the AGB had other requirements, for example relating to capital cities and continents. Therefore I think there may be some value in the DG including in the Charter a review of the geographic names or something along those lines. Donna From: Lars Hoffmann [mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2015 12:43 AM To: Donna Austin; Steve Chan; gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Dear Donna, Thank you for your note. There is currently a Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains (see here <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48346463> ) working on at least part of this issue. You might recall that Heather provided an update to the GNSO Council as the Group¹s co-Chair during the last Council call (transcript here <http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-21may15-en.pdf> ). To assure you, and others, the Group is very much aware of the GAC¹s work and is trying to coordinate their respective efforts to avoid a situation where the GAC¹s potential future advise on geographic names conflicts with anything the CWG is producing. Please note that the CWG is meeting bi-weekly and the number of GNSO members is not as prominent as it could be - as also pointed out by Heather. In addition, Heather will send out a call to the GNSO Council to provide informal feedback on the CWG¹s work, including the potential overlap with the GAC¹s work later today; any feedback you and others can provide will be most welcome in the CWG¹s discussions. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars From: Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> Date: Wednesday, 3 June 2015 01:49 To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, "<gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Steve, All I have another questionsorry As we all know the GAC has a working group on Geographic Names, which seems to be intent on expanding the definition to include potentially thousands of strings. The AGB had a moratorium on the ability to apply for country/territory names at the top level in the first round. Is it the intention of the DG that this be picked up as part of the next round PDP, or perhaps dealt with as a distinct and separate issue elsewhere. Apologies if this has been covered previously and I missed it. Thanks, Donna DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne|Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655 <tel:%2B1%20310%20890%209655> P +61 3 9866 3710 <tel:%2B61%203%209866%203710> E donna.austin@ariservices.com <mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com <http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter <https://twitter.com/ARIservices> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Monday, 1 June 2015 3:56 PM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant All, I have made the following updates to the draft charter: * Incorporated the suggestion from Donna Austin from 27 May * Made the change suggested by Philip Sheppard and the BRG, although I made it far more general because as Philip noted, the set of circumstances described would not be limited to just .brands. * Regarding the comments from Thomas Lowenhaupt, I did not make a change in the charter, but instead made a change in the matrix, where I included a link to Thomas¹ Wiki post about Informed Consent, so that it can be considered in full by a possible WG. The latest versions are attached and also available on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables. If there are any disagreements with how the items have been captured, do of course let me know and I¹ll be happy to update. When we reach the finish line, I¹ll once again integrate the DG's three documents into a single, clean document. Best, Steve From: "philip@brandregistrygroup.org" <philip@brandregistrygroup.org> Date: Monday, June 1, 2015 at 3:46 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Steve, Jeff, Bret, a BRG member has made this suggestion which I think could be wider than just .brands. Could you agree to add it to the Charter maybe in Section II, Group 1, around the bullet "Different TLD Types? Feel free to turn the text into the style of the Charter. Philip Sheppard Director General Brand Registry Group www.brandregistrygroup.org <http://www.brandregistrygroup.org> ---------------------------- Application by a previous applicant In case a (.brand) RO (from the first round) applies for another (.brand) gTLD in the subsequent application window, certain requirements of the application could be shortened, reduced of even omitted (e.g., financial, technical, administrative, etc.) in case such RO is duly fulfilling its current RA and running its (.brand) gTLD. It seems some time could be saved during the application process if ICANN validates most of the the RO information. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Thanks Steve. I don't agree that is a correct statement about the interests supposedly to be balanced. How about we just say "Review whether geographic names requirements are appropriate"? The rest is fine but should also call out 2-letter codes specifically. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Donna, Mike, Phil, Kiran, All,
Noting all the points made by DG members, staff has drafted proposed additions to the draft charter text, which you will find below:
- Reserved names list: Review the composition of the reserved names list to determine if additions, modifications, or subtractions are needed. Evaluate if the implementation matched expectations (e.g., recommendations of the Reserved Names Working Group). Review whether geographic names requirements properly balance the needs of governments or public authorities and potential applicants. - *Note, the GNSO/ccNSO-chartered Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains is focused on a policy framework for country and territory names and efforts should be made to avoid duplicative work. In addition, capital city names, city names, etc. may also warrant discussion.*
We look forward to your review and comments.
Best, Steve
From: Lars HOFFMANN <Lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 9:51 AM To: Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk>, 'Mike Rodenbaugh' < mike@rodenbaugh.com>, 'Donna Austin' <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
Dear Phil, Just a quick note that the CWG on the Use of Country and Territory Names is dealing with the issue of two-letter top-level domains and it is an issue on which the ccNSO participants have clear views. This is not to discourage inclusion of this in the Charter, just a call for caution to prevent the development of duplicate and potentially contradictory policies or policy frameworks (the latter being what the CWG is charted to produce). Very best. Lars
From: Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk> Date: Thursday, 4 June 2015 18:25 To: 'Mike Rodenbaugh' <mike@rodenbaugh.com>, 'Donna Austin' < Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> Cc: "<gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
Hi Donna,
I totally agree with your and Mike’s comment.
The issues surrounding re Round 1 applicants .spa ( as in a spa / Belgium city) .london (as in UK and Canada) .patagonia( as in country / clothing company) and of course .amazon need to resolved / clarified prior to Round 2 .
I would also include the issue surrounding two letter TLDs – which stopped the likes of Hewlett Packard applying for .HP
Thanks
Phil
Phil Buckingham
CEO, Dot Advice Limited
*From:*gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh *Sent:* 04 June 2015 01:55 *To:* Donna Austin *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
+1 I think there may be some value in the DG including in the Charter a review of the geographic names restrictions in the AGB. Thanks Donna for raising the issue.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Donna Austin < Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> wrote:
Hi Lars
Thank you, I am aware of the work Heather and the CCWG are undertaking, but I wasn’t sure if there was overlap into the work of this group.
My concern is that the CCWG is restricting it’s considerations to country and territory names at the top level and the AGB had other requirements, for example relating to capital cities and continents. Therefore I think there may be some value in the DG including in the Charter a review of the geographic names or something along those lines.
Donna
*From:* Lars Hoffmann [mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org] *Sent:* Wednesday, 3 June 2015 12:43 AM *To:* Donna Austin; Steve Chan; gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
Dear Donna,
Thank you for your note. There is currently a Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains (see here <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48346463>) working on at least part of this issue. You might recall that Heather provided an update to the GNSO Council as the Group’s co-Chair during the last Council call (transcript here <http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-21may15-en.pdf>). To assure you, and others, the Group is very much aware of the GAC’s work and is trying to coordinate their respective efforts to avoid a situation where the GAC’s potential future advise on geographic names conflicts with anything the CWG is producing. Please note that the CWG is meeting bi-weekly and the number of GNSO members is not as prominent as it could be - as also pointed out by Heather.
In addition, Heather will send out a call to the GNSO Council to provide informal feedback on the CWG’s work, including the potential overlap with the GAC’s work later today; any feedback you – and others – can provide will be most welcome in the CWG’s discussions.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Lars
*From: *Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> *Date: *Wednesday, 3 June 2015 01:49 *To: *Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, "<gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
Steve, All
I have another question—sorry
As we all know the GAC has a working group on Geographic Names, which seems to be intent on expanding the definition to include potentially thousands of strings. The AGB had a moratorium on the ability to apply for country/territory names at the top level in the first round.
Is it the intention of the DG that this be picked up as part of the next round PDP, or perhaps dealt with as a distinct and separate issue elsewhere.
Apologies if this has been covered previously and I missed it.
Thanks,
Donna
[image: Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]*D**ONNA AUSTIN* Policy and Industry Affairs Manager
*ARI REGISTRY SERVICES* Melbourne*|*Los Angeles *P* +1 310 890 9655 *P* +61 3 9866 3710 *E* donna.austin@ariservices.com *W* www.ariservices.com
*Follow us on **Twitter* <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
*The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.*
*From:*gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Steve Chan *Sent:* Monday, 1 June 2015 3:56 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
All,
I have made the following updates to the draft charter:
- Incorporated the suggestion from Donna Austin from 27 May - Made the change suggested by Philip Sheppard and the BRG, although I made it far more general because as Philip noted, the set of circumstances described would not be limited to just .brands. - Regarding the comments from Thomas Lowenhaupt, I did not make a change in the charter, but instead made a change in the matrix, where I included a link to Thomas’ Wiki post about Informed Consent, so that it can be considered in full by a possible WG.
The latest versions are attached and also available on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables. If there are any disagreements with how the items have been captured, do of course let me know and I’ll be happy to update.
When we reach the finish line, I’ll once again integrate the DG's three documents into a single, clean document.
Best,
Steve
*From: *"philip@brandregistrygroup.org" <philip@brandregistrygroup.org> *Date: *Monday, June 1, 2015 at 3:46 AM *To: *"gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
Steve, Jeff, Bret,
a BRG member has made this suggestion which I think could be wider than just .brands. Could you agree to add it to the Charter maybe in Section II, Group 1, around the bullet "*Different TLD Types*? Feel free to turn the text into the style of the Charter.
Philip Sheppard
Director General
Brand Registry Group
www.brandregistrygroup.org
----------------------------
*Application by a previous applicant*
In case a (.brand) RO (from the first round) applies for another (.brand) gTLD in the subsequent application window, certain requirements of the application could be shortened, reduced of even omitted (e.g., financial, technical, administrative, etc.) in case such RO is duly fulfilling its current RA and running its (.brand) gTLD. It seems some time could be saved during the application process if ICANN validates most of the the RO information.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Dear Mike, I¹ve attempted to integrate your suggestions into the language. Please let me know if you are able to agree to the changes. If not, specific text edits are certainly welcome.
* Reserved names list: Review the composition of the reserved names list to determine if additions, modifications, or subtractions are needed (e.g., single letter, two letters, special characters, etc.). Evaluate if the implementation matched expectations (e.g., recommendations of the Reserved Names Working Group). Review whether geographic names requirements are appropriate.
* Note, the GNSO/ccNSO-chartered Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains is focused on a policy framework for country and territory names and efforts should be made to avoid duplicative work. In addition, capital city names, city names, etc. may also warrant discussion.
Best, Steve From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 11:04 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Cc: Lars HOFFMANN <Lars.hoffmann@icann.org>, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk>, Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>, "gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Thanks Steve. I don't agree that is a correct statement about the interests supposedly to be balanced. How about we just say "Review whether geographic names requirements are appropriate"? The rest is fine but should also call out 2-letter codes specifically. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Donna, Mike, Phil, Kiran, All,
Noting all the points made by DG members, staff has drafted proposed additions to the draft charter text, which you will find below:
* Reserved names list: Review the composition of the reserved names list to determine if additions, modifications, or subtractions are needed. Evaluate if the implementation matched expectations (e.g., recommendations of the Reserved Names Working Group). Review whether geographic names requirements properly balance the needs of governments or public authorities and potential applicants.
* Note, the GNSO/ccNSO-chartered Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains is focused on a policy framework for country and territory names and efforts should be made to avoid duplicative work. In addition, capital city names, city names, etc. may also warrant discussion.
We look forward to your review and comments.
Best, Steve
From: Lars HOFFMANN <Lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 9:51 AM To: Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk>, 'Mike Rodenbaugh' <mike@rodenbaugh.com>, 'Donna Austin' <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
Dear Phil, Just a quick note that the CWG on the Use of Country and Territory Names is dealing with the issue of two-letter top-level domains and it is an issue on which the ccNSO participants have clear views. This is not to discourage inclusion of this in the Charter, just a call for caution to prevent the development of duplicate and potentially contradictory policies or policy frameworks (the latter being what the CWG is charted to produce). Very best. Lars
From: Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk> Date: Thursday, 4 June 2015 18:25 To: 'Mike Rodenbaugh' <mike@rodenbaugh.com>, 'Donna Austin' <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> Cc: "<gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
Hi Donna,
I totally agree with your and Mike¹s comment.
The issues surrounding re Round 1 applicants .spa ( as in a spa / Belgium city) .london (as in UK and Canada) .patagonia( as in country / clothing company) and of course .amazon need to resolved / clarified prior to Round 2 .
I would also include the issue surrounding two letter TLDs which stopped the likes of Hewlett Packard applying for .HP
Thanks Phil
Phil Buckingham CEO, Dot Advice Limited
From:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 04 June 2015 01:55 To: Donna Austin Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
+1 I think there may be some value in the DG including in the Charter a review of the geographic names restrictions in the AGB. Thanks Donna for raising the issue.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <tel:%2B1.415.738.8087>
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> wrote:
Hi Lars
Thank you, I am aware of the work Heather and the CCWG are undertaking, but I wasn¹t sure if there was overlap into the work of this group.
My concern is that the CCWG is restricting it¹s considerations to country and territory names at the top level and the AGB had other requirements, for example relating to capital cities and continents. Therefore I think there may be some value in the DG including in the Charter a review of the geographic names or something along those lines.
Donna
From: Lars Hoffmann [mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2015 12:43 AM To: Donna Austin; Steve Chan; gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
Dear Donna,
Thank you for your note. There is currently a Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains (see here <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48346463> ) working on at least part of this issue. You might recall that Heather provided an update to the GNSO Council as the Group¹s co-Chair during the last Council call (transcript here <http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-21may15-en.pdf> ). To assure you, and others, the Group is very much aware of the GAC¹s work and is trying to coordinate their respective efforts to avoid a situation where the GAC¹s potential future advise on geographic names conflicts with anything the CWG is producing. Please note that the CWG is meeting bi-weekly and the number of GNSO members is not as prominent as it could be - as also pointed out by Heather.
In addition, Heather will send out a call to the GNSO Council to provide informal feedback on the CWG¹s work, including the potential overlap with the GAC¹s work later today; any feedback you and others can provide will be most welcome in the CWG¹s discussions.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Lars
From: Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> Date: Wednesday, 3 June 2015 01:49 To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, "<gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
Steve, All
I have another questionsorry
As we all know the GAC has a working group on Geographic Names, which seems to be intent on expanding the definition to include potentially thousands of strings. The AGB had a moratorium on the ability to apply for country/territory names at the top level in the first round.
Is it the intention of the DG that this be picked up as part of the next round PDP, or perhaps dealt with as a distinct and separate issue elsewhere.
Apologies if this has been covered previously and I missed it.
Thanks,
Donna
DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager
ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne|Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655 <tel:%2B1%20310%20890%209655> P +61 3 9866 3710 <tel:%2B61%203%209866%203710> E donna.austin@ariservices.com <mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com <http://www.ariservices.com/>
Follow us on Twitter <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.
From:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Monday, 1 June 2015 3:56 PM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
All,
I have made the following updates to the draft charter: * Incorporated the suggestion from Donna Austin from 27 May * Made the change suggested by Philip Sheppard and the BRG, although I made it far more general because as Philip noted, the set of circumstances described would not be limited to just .brands. * Regarding the comments from Thomas Lowenhaupt, I did not make a change in the charter, but instead made a change in the matrix, where I included a link to Thomas¹ Wiki post about Informed Consent, so that it can be considered in full by a possible WG. The latest versions are attached and also available on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables. If there are any disagreements with how the items have been captured, do of course let me know and I¹ll be happy to update.
When we reach the finish line, I¹ll once again integrate the DG's three documents into a single, clean document.
Best,
Steve
From: "philip@brandregistrygroup.org" <philip@brandregistrygroup.org> Date: Monday, June 1, 2015 at 3:46 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
Steve, Jeff, Bret,
a BRG member has made this suggestion which I think could be wider than just .brands. Could you agree to add it to the Charter maybe in Section II, Group 1, around the bullet "Different TLD Types? Feel free to turn the text into the style of the Charter.
Philip Sheppard
Director General
Brand Registry Group
www.brandregistrygroup.org <http://www.brandregistrygroup.org>
----------------------------
Application by a previous applicant
In case a (.brand) RO (from the first round) applies for another (.brand) gTLD in the subsequent application window, certain requirements of the application could be shortened, reduced of even omitted (e.g., financial, technical, administrative, etc.) in case such RO is duly fulfilling its current RA and running its (.brand) gTLD. It seems some time could be saved during the application process if ICANN validates most of the the RO information.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Thank Steve. Looks good to me. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Mike,
I’ve attempted to integrate your suggestions into the language. Please let me know if you are able to agree to the changes. If not, specific text edits are certainly welcome.
- Reserved names list: Review the composition of the reserved names list to determine if additions, modifications, or subtractions are needed (e.g., single letter, two letters, special characters, etc.). Evaluate if the implementation matched expectations (e.g., recommendations of the Reserved Names Working Group). Review whether geographic names requirements are appropriate. - *Note, the GNSO/ccNSO-chartered Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains is focused on a policy framework for country and territory names and efforts should be made to avoid duplicative work. In addition, capital city names, city names, etc. may also warrant discussion.*
Best, Steve
From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 11:04 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Cc: Lars HOFFMANN <Lars.hoffmann@icann.org>, Phil Buckingham < phil@dotadvice.co.uk>, Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>, " gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
Thanks Steve. I don't agree that is a correct statement about the interests supposedly to be balanced. How about we just say "Review whether geographic names requirements are appropriate"? The rest is fine but should also call out 2-letter codes specifically.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Donna, Mike, Phil, Kiran, All,
Noting all the points made by DG members, staff has drafted proposed additions to the draft charter text, which you will find below:
- Reserved names list: Review the composition of the reserved names list to determine if additions, modifications, or subtractions are needed. Evaluate if the implementation matched expectations (e.g., recommendations of the Reserved Names Working Group). Review whether geographic names requirements properly balance the needs of governments or public authorities and potential applicants. - *Note, the GNSO/ccNSO-chartered Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains is focused on a policy framework for country and territory names and efforts should be made to avoid duplicative work. In addition, capital city names, city names, etc. may also warrant discussion.*
We look forward to your review and comments.
Best, Steve
From: Lars HOFFMANN <Lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 9:51 AM To: Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk>, 'Mike Rodenbaugh' < mike@rodenbaugh.com>, 'Donna Austin' <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
Dear Phil, Just a quick note that the CWG on the Use of Country and Territory Names is dealing with the issue of two-letter top-level domains and it is an issue on which the ccNSO participants have clear views. This is not to discourage inclusion of this in the Charter, just a call for caution to prevent the development of duplicate and potentially contradictory policies or policy frameworks (the latter being what the CWG is charted to produce). Very best. Lars
From: Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk> Date: Thursday, 4 June 2015 18:25 To: 'Mike Rodenbaugh' <mike@rodenbaugh.com>, 'Donna Austin' < Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> Cc: "<gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
Hi Donna,
I totally agree with your and Mike’s comment.
The issues surrounding re Round 1 applicants .spa ( as in a spa / Belgium city) .london (as in UK and Canada) .patagonia( as in country / clothing company) and of course .amazon need to resolved / clarified prior to Round 2 .
I would also include the issue surrounding two letter TLDs – which stopped the likes of Hewlett Packard applying for .HP
Thanks
Phil
Phil Buckingham
CEO, Dot Advice Limited
*From:*gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh *Sent:* 04 June 2015 01:55 *To:* Donna Austin *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
+1 I think there may be some value in the DG including in the Charter a review of the geographic names restrictions in the AGB. Thanks Donna for raising the issue.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Donna Austin < Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> wrote:
Hi Lars
Thank you, I am aware of the work Heather and the CCWG are undertaking, but I wasn’t sure if there was overlap into the work of this group.
My concern is that the CCWG is restricting it’s considerations to country and territory names at the top level and the AGB had other requirements, for example relating to capital cities and continents. Therefore I think there may be some value in the DG including in the Charter a review of the geographic names or something along those lines.
Donna
*From:* Lars Hoffmann [mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org] *Sent:* Wednesday, 3 June 2015 12:43 AM *To:* Donna Austin; Steve Chan; gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
Dear Donna,
Thank you for your note. There is currently a Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains (see here <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48346463>) working on at least part of this issue. You might recall that Heather provided an update to the GNSO Council as the Group’s co-Chair during the last Council call (transcript here <http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-21may15-en.pdf>). To assure you, and others, the Group is very much aware of the GAC’s work and is trying to coordinate their respective efforts to avoid a situation where the GAC’s potential future advise on geographic names conflicts with anything the CWG is producing. Please note that the CWG is meeting bi-weekly and the number of GNSO members is not as prominent as it could be - as also pointed out by Heather.
In addition, Heather will send out a call to the GNSO Council to provide informal feedback on the CWG’s work, including the potential overlap with the GAC’s work later today; any feedback you – and others – can provide will be most welcome in the CWG’s discussions.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Lars
*From: *Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> *Date: *Wednesday, 3 June 2015 01:49 *To: *Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, "<gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
Steve, All
I have another question—sorry
As we all know the GAC has a working group on Geographic Names, which seems to be intent on expanding the definition to include potentially thousands of strings. The AGB had a moratorium on the ability to apply for country/territory names at the top level in the first round.
Is it the intention of the DG that this be picked up as part of the next round PDP, or perhaps dealt with as a distinct and separate issue elsewhere.
Apologies if this has been covered previously and I missed it.
Thanks,
Donna
[image: Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]*D**ONNA AUSTIN* Policy and Industry Affairs Manager
*ARI REGISTRY SERVICES* Melbourne*|*Los Angeles *P* +1 310 890 9655 *P* +61 3 9866 3710 *E* donna.austin@ariservices.com *W* www.ariservices.com
*Follow us on **Twitter* <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
*The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.*
*From:*gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Steve Chan *Sent:* Monday, 1 June 2015 3:56 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
All,
I have made the following updates to the draft charter:
- Incorporated the suggestion from Donna Austin from 27 May - Made the change suggested by Philip Sheppard and the BRG, although I made it far more general because as Philip noted, the set of circumstances described would not be limited to just .brands. - Regarding the comments from Thomas Lowenhaupt, I did not make a change in the charter, but instead made a change in the matrix, where I included a link to Thomas’ Wiki post about Informed Consent, so that it can be considered in full by a possible WG.
The latest versions are attached and also available on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables. If there are any disagreements with how the items have been captured, do of course let me know and I’ll be happy to update.
When we reach the finish line, I’ll once again integrate the DG's three documents into a single, clean document.
Best,
Steve
*From: *"philip@brandregistrygroup.org" <philip@brandregistrygroup.org> *Date: *Monday, June 1, 2015 at 3:46 AM *To: *"gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
Steve, Jeff, Bret,
a BRG member has made this suggestion which I think could be wider than just .brands. Could you agree to add it to the Charter maybe in Section II, Group 1, around the bullet "*Different TLD Types*? Feel free to turn the text into the style of the Charter.
Philip Sheppard
Director General
Brand Registry Group
www.brandregistrygroup.org
----------------------------
*Application by a previous applicant*
In case a (.brand) RO (from the first round) applies for another (.brand) gTLD in the subsequent application window, certain requirements of the application could be shortened, reduced of even omitted (e.g., financial, technical, administrative, etc.) in case such RO is duly fulfilling its current RA and running its (.brand) gTLD. It seems some time could be saved during the application process if ICANN validates most of the the RO information.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Agree with Mike here. The interests are not limited to the needs of governments/public authorities and potential applicants. We need a broader statement along the lines of what Mike suggests below. Thanks, Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:05 AM To: Steve Chan Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Thanks Steve. I don't agree that is a correct statement about the interests supposedly to be balanced. How about we just say "Review whether geographic names requirements are appropriate"? The rest is fine but should also call out 2-letter codes specifically. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Donna, Mike, Phil, Kiran, All, Noting all the points made by DG members, staff has drafted proposed additions to the draft charter text, which you will find below: * Reserved names list: Review the composition of the reserved names list to determine if additions, modifications, or subtractions are needed. Evaluate if the implementation matched expectations (e.g., recommendations of the Reserved Names Working Group). Review whether geographic names requirements properly balance the needs of governments or public authorities and potential applicants. * Note, the GNSO/ccNSO-chartered Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains is focused on a policy framework for country and territory names and efforts should be made to avoid duplicative work. In addition, capital city names, city names, etc. may also warrant discussion. We look forward to your review and comments. Best, Steve From: Lars HOFFMANN <Lars.hoffmann@icann.org<mailto:Lars.hoffmann@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 9:51 AM To: Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>>, 'Mike Rodenbaugh' <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>, 'Donna Austin' <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Dear Phil, Just a quick note that the CWG on the Use of Country and Territory Names is dealing with the issue of two-letter top-level domains and it is an issue on which the ccNSO participants have clear views. This is not to discourage inclusion of this in the Charter, just a call for caution to prevent the development of duplicate and potentially contradictory policies or policy frameworks (the latter being what the CWG is charted to produce). Very best. Lars From: Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>> Date: Thursday, 4 June 2015 18:25 To: 'Mike Rodenbaugh' <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>, 'Donna Austin' <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>> Cc: "<gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>>" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Hi Donna, I totally agree with your and Mike’s comment. The issues surrounding re Round 1 applicants .spa ( as in a spa / Belgium city) .london (as in UK and Canada) .patagonia( as in country / clothing company) and of course .amazon need to resolved / clarified prior to Round 2 . I would also include the issue surrounding two letter TLDs – which stopped the likes of Hewlett Packard applying for .HP Thanks Phil Phil Buckingham CEO, Dot Advice Limited From:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 04 June 2015 01:55 To: Donna Austin Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant +1 I think there may be some value in the DG including in the Charter a review of the geographic names restrictions in the AGB. Thanks Donna for raising the issue. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087<tel:%2B1.415.738.8087> http://rodenbaugh.com On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>> wrote: Hi Lars Thank you, I am aware of the work Heather and the CCWG are undertaking, but I wasn’t sure if there was overlap into the work of this group. My concern is that the CCWG is restricting it’s considerations to country and territory names at the top level and the AGB had other requirements, for example relating to capital cities and continents. Therefore I think there may be some value in the DG including in the Charter a review of the geographic names or something along those lines. Donna From: Lars Hoffmann [mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>] Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2015 12:43 AM To: Donna Austin; Steve Chan; gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Dear Donna, Thank you for your note. There is currently a Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains (see here<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48346463>) working on at least part of this issue. You might recall that Heather provided an update to the GNSO Council as the Group’s co-Chair during the last Council call (transcript here<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-21may15-en.pdf>). To assure you, and others, the Group is very much aware of the GAC’s work and is trying to coordinate their respective efforts to avoid a situation where the GAC’s potential future advise on geographic names conflicts with anything the CWG is producing. Please note that the CWG is meeting bi-weekly and the number of GNSO members is not as prominent as it could be - as also pointed out by Heather. In addition, Heather will send out a call to the GNSO Council to provide informal feedback on the CWG’s work, including the potential overlap with the GAC’s work later today; any feedback you – and others – can provide will be most welcome in the CWG’s discussions. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars From: Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>> Date: Wednesday, 3 June 2015 01:49 To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>, "<gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>>" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Steve, All I have another question—sorry As we all know the GAC has a working group on Geographic Names, which seems to be intent on expanding the definition to include potentially thousands of strings. The AGB had a moratorium on the ability to apply for country/territory names at the top level in the first round. Is it the intention of the DG that this be picked up as part of the next round PDP, or perhaps dealt with as a distinct and separate issue elsewhere. Apologies if this has been covered previously and I missed it. Thanks, Donna [Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne|Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655<tel:%2B1%20310%20890%209655> P +61 3 9866 3710<tel:%2B61%203%209866%203710> E donna.austin@ariservices.com<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Monday, 1 June 2015 3:56 PM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant All, I have made the following updates to the draft charter: * Incorporated the suggestion from Donna Austin from 27 May * Made the change suggested by Philip Sheppard and the BRG, although I made it far more general because as Philip noted, the set of circumstances described would not be limited to just .brands. * Regarding the comments from Thomas Lowenhaupt, I did not make a change in the charter, but instead made a change in the matrix, where I included a link to Thomas’ Wiki post about Informed Consent, so that it can be considered in full by a possible WG. The latest versions are attached and also available on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables. If there are any disagreements with how the items have been captured, do of course let me know and I’ll be happy to update. When we reach the finish line, I’ll once again integrate the DG's three documents into a single, clean document. Best, Steve From: "philip@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:philip@brandregistrygroup.org>" <philip@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:philip@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, June 1, 2015 at 3:46 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Steve, Jeff, Bret, a BRG member has made this suggestion which I think could be wider than just .brands. Could you agree to add it to the Charter maybe in Section II, Group 1, around the bullet "Different TLD Types? Feel free to turn the text into the style of the Charter. Philip Sheppard Director General Brand Registry Group www.brandregistrygroup.org<http://www.brandregistrygroup.org> ---------------------------- Application by a previous applicant In case a (.brand) RO (from the first round) applies for another (.brand) gTLD in the subsequent application window, certain requirements of the application could be shortened, reduced of even omitted (e.g., financial, technical, administrative, etc.) in case such RO is duly fulfilling its current RA and running its (.brand) gTLD. It seems some time could be saved during the application process if ICANN validates most of the the RO information. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Philip, Steve, I agree, Philip. – the BRG member Round 1 applicant makes a valid suggestion . There is also very valid case for a complete rewrite / templates on the financial evaluation for .brands or indeed a .generic .city.etc The one size fits all can work for the technical evaluation , but certainly not on the financial evaluation. The whole issue surrounding the COI / LOC ( Q50) is/was a complete nonsense. Steve , you might be aware that I was involved in the financial evaluation processes / model( through Mike Salazar). I would be more than happy to discuss further in BA. Which section would / could this be added to ? Regards, Phil Phil Buckingham CEO, Dot Advice Limited From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of philip@brandregistrygroup.org Sent: 01 June 2015 11:46 To: Subsequent Rounds ICANN Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Steve, Jeff, Bret, a BRG member has made this suggestion which I think could be wider than just .brands. Could you agree to add it to the Charter maybe in Section II, Group 1, around the bullet "Different TLD Types? Feel free to turn the text into the style of the Charter. Philip Sheppard Director General Brand Registry Group www.brandregistrygroup.org ---------------------------- Application by a previous applicant In case a (.brand) RO (from the first round) applies for another (.brand) gTLD in the subsequent application window, certain requirements of the application could be shortened, reduced of even omitted (e.g., financial, technical, administrative, etc.) in case such RO is duly fulfilling its current RA and running its (.brand) gTLD. It seems some time could be saved during the application process if ICANN validates most of the the RO information.
participants (7)
-
Donna Austin -
Kiran Malancharuvil -
Lars Hoffmann -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Phil Buckingham -
philip＠brandregistrygroup.org -
Steve Chan