New subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps

March 24, 2018

      I would like to raise a potential concern regarding the preliminary
report/final report plan for this WG.  Unlike most preliminary reports,
this one will have a great many open issues and undecided options.  As a
result, the first time that the community will see the draft
recommendations of the WG will be the final report, a role usually played
by the preliminary report.  That leaves us no room for error or uncertainty
in the final report -- we can't bring it out for comment with significant
open issues, if this is really intended to be the final report.  That will
result in a heavy lift to get this into "final" form straight from a fairly
unsettled question-filled preliminary report.  And what if the comments
result in significant changes in the final report -- what happens?  Do we
have a supplemental final report (not really contemplated by the Charter)?

An alternative approach could be to put this report out as a "discussion
draft," intended to spur discussion, and then follow that with the
preliminary report with our "beta version" and then the final report.
There is precedent for working groups making requests to the community for
input or comments or information during the pendency of their work.  This
would allow the preliminary report to play its usual role.

Of course, this could raise timing issues.  On the other hand, the cynic in
me says that this plan to put out an undercooked preliminary report is
intended to put timing ahead of fidelity to the PDP process.  I'm not
advocating form for the sake of form.  Rather I think there are good
reasons why the preliminary report is intended to be
almost-ready-for-prime-time report, and not a sandbox/workshop/open kitchen
for the community to join our "fun" and deliberations.  (Maybe it's the
"home version" of the Working Group....)

Failing that, I think we have to brace ourselves for the possibility that
we could need a supplemental final draft.  I suppose the advantage of that
is that we *look* like we're on schedule for the next year or so....

Just my 2 cents,

Greg

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>
wrote:
...
It strikes me that to the extent that geo names may be defined more
broadly than in the 2012 AGB, it might be a good compromise to establish an
Objection process for those wider geo names rather than prohibiting
applicants from applying altogether or requiring them to have permission
first.  The Objection would have to be supported by a substantial portion
of the geo community described/implicated by the name, e.g. a particular
region,  and there would need to be a stated public policy reason for the
Objection.  Standing might be an issue in some cases and should always be
resolved first, along with resolution of any conflicts of interest prior to
the commencement of any substantive proceedings.
It would be great to see Track 5 come up to speed with Tracks 1 to 4 given
that there has been a good deal of discussion over the last several years
regarding this arena.  It’s hard to see how we can all move forward without
getting the geo names issues resolved first.  Maybe no one wants another
Objection process, but then how can we move toward a resolution when the
varying interests are far apart?  I would favor a new Objection process to
resolve this.  At that point, the community may be able to accept some of
the wider definitions of geo names (not sure exactly how wide).
I would couple this one with the notion that if the applicant loses the
Objection, its application fee will be refunded.  Just to be clear, the
process applicable to the names specified in the 2012 AGB would remain the
same.
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On
Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman
*Sent:* Friday, March 23, 2018 11:09 AM
*To:* cw@christopherwilkinson.eu; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Annebeth B. Lange;
Martin Sutton; Olga Cavalli; Javier Rua; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
*Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org;
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org;
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps
Thanks Christopher.
I do not believe that any of the Work of Work Tracks 1-4 will impinge the
activities of Work Track 5.  Work Track 5 is limited in scope to only
address issues of “geographic names at the top level”.  Of course Work
Track 5 is working on defining “geographic names” as part of its work.
To the extent that Work Track 5 believes that unique processes need to
apply to “geographic names” including on business models for geographic
names, free speech, predictability, objections, dispute resolution, etc.,
then Work Track 5 will need to address those and explain why geographic
names at the top level need to be treated differently than what is
recommended for Work Tracks 1-4.
If you have issues about IDNs in general, or any other issues on top level
domains in general then those should be addressed in Work Tracks 1-4.
In short, I don’t believe there are issues at this point with operating on
two different schedules.  If, however, a conflict does arise, we will
address it at that point in time.
Thanks.
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: *jeff.neuman@valideus.com <jeff.neuman@valideus.com>* or *jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
<jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>*
T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
*From:* cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>
*Sent:* Friday, March 23, 2018 1:26 PM
*To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <
langdonorr@gmail.com>; Annebeth B. Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no>;
Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>; Olga Cavalli <
olgacavalli@gmail.com>; Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com>;
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
*Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org;
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org;
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps
Dear Jeff, Dear PDP friends and colleagues:
Thankyou. I understand the interest in moving forward towards a draft of
the Initial Report. However, we should all be aware of the
interrelationships between WT1-4 and WT5. WT5 should not be constrained by
prior understandings reached in WT1-4.
In my view, resolution of the issues before WT5 will impinge directly on
several related issues, including IDN TLDs, their Business Models,
Predictably, freedom of speech and risk analysis.
Consequently, notwithstanding the *décalage* of the WT schedules, I
consider that the first draft of an Initial Report should comprise input
from the PDP as a whole.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson
On 23 Mar 2018, at 03:28, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
Dear All Working Group Members/Observers & Work Tracks 1-4
Members/Observers,
You may have noticed that in the last day or so notes have been sent out
cancelling certain Work Track and overall Working Group meetings.  We
wanted to provide the group with an explanation and information on where we
are going from here.
Over the past year we have been broken out into Work Tracks to get through
the voluminous amount of issues (both policy and some implementation) from
the 2012 round of new gTLDs.  Although there may be a couple of work track
meetings over the next month to cover areas that we may not have covered
(or may not have covered as in depth as we wanted), during the month of
April, we will mostly operate as a full working group to get out an Initial
Report.
ICANN staff and the Working Group Leaders (including Work Track 1-4
Leaders) are working on taking all of the materials and combining it into
one Initial Report.  This not only means taking all of the power points and
working documents and turning those into prose, but also organizing the
report in a manner that flows.  As we discussed prior to, and at, ICANN 61,
our goal is to organize the Initial Report in more of a chronological order
starting with the Overarching Issues, Pre-Application Activities,
Application Activities, Objections/public comment, Evaluation,
Pre-delegation and Post Delegation.  The goal is to have a draft of the
substantive elements out to the full working group by the end of the first
week of April (some of the more boilerplate oriented language may be filled
in subsequently).  This will give the full working group at least 3 weeks
to review before the target date for publishing the Initial Report for
public comment.
This will require that we really use e-mail for our comments and also that
we will be scheduling 90 minute overall working group calls on *April
9th, April 16th, and April 23rd.*
As a reminder, the Initial Report will be set up in such a way as to
describe the issues, provide preliminary recommendations (if we have them),
and to present options for possible paths forward.   In addition, we will
be attempting to provide pointed questions on where we would really like to
see public comment.  We are NOT going to be issuing Consensus Calls for the
recommendations or the content.  Rather, we are going to try and have
general agreement that the Initial Report is ready to go out for public
comment.  We will be very clear in the introduction to the report that we
have not done consensus calls and the purposes for which we are presenting
preliminary recommendations.  We will be doing consensus calls for the
final report later this year
*This does not apply for Work Track 5.  Work Track 5 is on a different
schedule which will be communicated by the 4 Work Track 5 leaders.*
Please let us know if you have any questions or comments.
Best regards,
*Jeffrey J. Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr*
Subsequent Procedures PDP Overall Chairs
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps

Greg Shatan

Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch

tags

participants (2)