December 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3

FW: Letter on behalf of FIP
by Karen Day Dec. 19, 2017

Dec. 19, 2017

Dear Work Track 3 Members, Please see the attached letter which we have received this morning for your consideration into our work. Best regards, Karen From: Rachel van Kesteren [mailto:Rachel@fip.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 7:03 AM To: Karen Day <Karen.Day(a)sas.com>; robin(a)ipjustice.org Cc: CEO@fip <ceo(a)fip.org>; President <president(a)fip.org>; Carola van der Hoeff <Carola(a)fip.org>; Thomas Menighan <tmenighan(a)aphanet.org> Subject: Letter on behalf of FIP EXTERNAL Dear Ms Day and Ms Gross, Please find attached a letter on behalf of Ms Ema Paulino, Interim CEO. Kind regards, Rachel [cid:image001.png@01D378C9.A2B225A0]<http://www.fip.org/> [cid:image002.png@01D378C9.A2B225A0]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalPharmaceuticalFederation/> [cid:image003.png@01D378C9.A2B225A0]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/fip> [cid:image004.png@01D378C9.A2B225A0]<https://twitter.com/FIPCongress> [cid:image005.png@01D378C9.A2B225A0]<https://www.youtube.com/user/IAmAPharmacistVideos> Rachel van Kesteren | Executive Secretary International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) Andries Bickerweg 5 | 2517 JP | The Hague | The Netherlands Tel: +31 70 302 1971 | Fax: +31 70 302 1999 Email:Rachel@fip.org<mailto:Rachel@fip.org> Website<http://www.fip.org> | Pharmacy Event Calendar<http://www.fip.org/events> | Publications<http://www.fip.org/publications> [cid:image006.png@01D378C9.A2B225A0] Website<https://www.fip.org/glasgow2018/> | Programme<https://www.fip.org/glasgow2018/programme/> | Press & Media<https://www.fip.org/glasgow2018/press-and-media/> | Glasgow<https://www.fip.org/glasgow2018/housing/> Join us on 2 September - 6 September 2018, Glasgow [cid:image007.png@01D378C9.A2B225A0] Website | Programme | Press & Media | Geneva Join us on 19 May - 20 May 2018, Geneva World Health Professions Regulation Conference 2018 The International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) is the global federation of 140 national organisations of pharmacists and pharmaceutical scientists dedicated to improving the access to and value of appropriate medicine use, and contributing to changes in science, practice and health policies worldwide. FIP represents over four million pharmacists and pharmaceutical scientists worldwide and endeavors to advance the role of the pharmacist through such partnerships as our official NGO status with the World Health Organization (WHO).

1 0

Report on CPE Review Released
by Karen Day Dec. 14, 2017

Dec. 14, 2017

Dear fellow members of Work Track 3, Please draw your attention to the newly released, long awaited, reports (there are 3) on the review of the Community Priority Evaluation Process which were issued by ICANN late yesterday. We will need to take these into account in our deliberations on our initial report. The announcement can be found here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-12-13-en and the full reports are available here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe#process-review As we will not be meeting together again for some time due to the holidays, I would encourage you to start sharing your thoughts, questions and concerns on our email list as soon as you begin working your way through the reports while they are fresh in your mind. With best wishes of the seasons, Karen

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 3 - 12 December 2017
by Emily Barabas Dec. 12, 2017

Dec. 12, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please find below notes and action items from the call today. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. You can find the chat transcript and call recording here: https://community.icann.org/x/RQxyB. Kind regards, Emily Notes/Action Items: 1. Welcome & Review of Agenda 2. Updates to SOI - no updates 3. Plenary Update - Call yesterday (Monday) focused on TLD types. WG members received "homework" regarding proposed additional TLD types - Additional homework: propose use case scenarios to apply to the Predictability Framework, one of the other overarching issues. 4. Review of Work Plan for WT3 through March 2018 - The plan is to present sections of the report from this WT to the Plenary on March 9. 5. Conclude Review of CC2 on “Community” Applications - 3.3.4 - Were the rights of communities infringed by the New gTLD Program? - RySG, BRG, and Afilias did not believe that the rights of communities were infringed. - Freedom of association and freedom of speech are referenced in this question. There has been some discussion that community applications should serve the public interest, but we should also consider that freedom of association is in the public interest. ICANN should not be making judgements about content. Chat excerpt: Jim Prendergast: Does anyone have any idea on when the Review of CPE will be completed? I would think that should inform this work. Alan Greenberg (ALAC): I asked Manal about the status of the GAC paper on Community applications. She said that the paper had been discussed but not approved - yet. BUt she noted that her recollection is that the paper is mostly factual not opinion. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Jim .. there has still been no further announcement or publishing of the FTI findings since scope 1 & 2 have been delived to ICANN. Not sure what the delay is or what the planned timing is of this being released. I concur that it is most important for ICANN to get this out for further discussion by this group and others. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): thanks Alan Jim Prendergast: @jamie - its takign forever. Been well over a year since the board asked for it Jon Nevett: i agree with Anne -- one person's terrorists is another person's freedom fighter Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Jim ... problem noted and we are just as confused and concerned Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): well noted Jim, perhaps we can ask staff to follow up on the credit status.... Jon Nevett: .pot could it go to medical marijuana growers in California? Or are they drug dealers? Jamie Baxter | dotgay: CPE cost is also linked to predictability for applicants Anne Aikman-Scalese: great example Jon - does it depend on the governing law of the community's jurisdiction? Colorado, CA and others okay - 3.3.5 - Are there other aspects of the New gTLD Program related to communities that should be considered in a more holistic fashion? - vTLD Consortium and NABP supported communities having registration policies requiring verification that registrants are members of the community. - RySG and Afilias addressed potential implications of the model for subsequent procedures. - We may have skipped over discussion during the last call regarding costs. The actual cost ended up being double the estimated cost. If there is information published in the AGB regarding estimated costs, this information needs to be more accurate. if the information in the AGB ends up being far from actual costs, ICANN should chip in to cover the costs. - If community applications are going to be given priority or receive other incentives, it is important to be able to review and have certain assurances about the business or management model going forward. You don't want ICANN to do granular content oversight, but if a registry is getting priority, some assurances are common sense as there are risks of gaming. There should be a way to confirm the community is legitimate and that the community registry will run differently than a generic registry. - There have been concerns about gaming with community applications. A structure with some level of verification would attract those who are seeking to represent a bona fide community. - Staff clarification on system for the 2012 round -- Registration requirements that applicants put into their application were included in Spec 12 of the agreement, regardless of whether CPE applies. If an application was presented as a community application and there was no contention and therefore no CPE, the claim to being a community application was taken at face value. - Support expressed for having evaluation criteria for all community applicants, not just those that are in contention. - In the last round, if there was no contention, the application was not evaluated under CPE, but there were also no special privileges to be gained by the designation. If we decide for the next round that the rules will be different for communities and extra benefits are provided for these TLDs, then there could be additional requirements. But if the rules stay the same, it is unnecessary to add requirements. Chat excerpt: Jon Nevett: Spec 12 requirements are in the contract Jon Nevett: community applicants are now going through a process to see how to change their Spec 12 requirements if they want to tweak them Jeff Neuman: @Jon is correct. There is no process yet for changing Spec 12. But there needs to be Jim Prendergast: Shoudl also note that those community applicants who were not in contention and didnt have to go through CPE are still bound by the promises made in Q20 of application. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Jim .. that is also my understanding Steve Chan: @Jim, thanks, that's essentially what I was trying to convey in my comment 6. Review of CC2 on “Objections” - 3.1.1 - INTA, Nominet, RySG, BRG, and Afilias believe that the existing recommendation do not need to be revised. - RySg, BRG, and Afilias recommended clarifying "a significant portion of the community" in Recommendation 20. - ALAC suggested changing recommendation 2. - The concern regarding language of recommendation 20 is important and needs to be looked at more closely. There is a potential to misunderstand what a "significant portion" means. - Agree that there is some clarification needed. Where there is some type of organization related to a community, the organization will have officers or directors that are authorized to act. If there is a determination made by that organization and authority is conferred upon them, do they at that point in time represent a significant portion of the community? For a community that is not established in a corporate form, there may be a legitimate basis for representing a significant part of a community where the applicant is stepping into a void, and there is evidence that the community would flock to the TLD once established. Panelists likely need more guidance on this issue. - How do you count a community that is invisible? Can you rely on organizations that are visible? Or do you require the community to make itself visible? It needs to be more predictable. Applicants can interpret the text differently as it is currently written. Chat excerpt: Jon Nevett: how you define the community is another issue -- depends on the string that is applied for -- does the American Bar Association apply for .ABA as a community or .LAW as a community? Gg Levine (NABP): @Jon: I would think they could apply for either name as a community Jon Nevett: Right, but the review might be different as to level of support, etc. 3.1.2 - Jannik Skou, BC, RySG, BRG, and Afilias suggested string confusion needs to be improved. - Jannik Skou and ALAC suggested that Legal Rights Objections need to be improved. - RySG, BRG, and Afilias suggested that Community Objections need to be improved. - BC suggested developing a process to appeal decisions. - RySG, BRG, and Afilias suggested specific procedural improvements to the objections process. - Where the AGB is vague, there should be more flexibility on the evaluation side. Otherwise the AGB needs to be clear. -The panel should be able to remediate a decision. This is important for predictability. The panelists should not take loose interpretations and then apply them rigidly without communicating this to others. Chat excerpt: Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Alan .. +1 Jon Nevett: Alan +1 Phil Buckingham: Alan + 1 Greg Shatan: Alan +1, +1 -One possible change: there could be an intervening step in the process in the objections process for parties to work out issues. - The panelists would have to allow the application to be changed in the case of mediation. - One way that we allowed for changes in applications in the 2012 round was PICs. We are talking about community applications serving the public interest. Could the change in the applications as a result of mediation be reflected in PICs? - PICs were only used “on the fly” in the last round because they were introduced late in the process. In subsequent procedures this may not be the case, as they will already be an established mechanism. - A big issue for the entire application process is whether and how applications can be changed after they are submitted. This should be addressed directly. If the goal is to be flexible and maximize the number of successful applications, there needs to be an opportunity to change applications. The other side of the issue is gaming. The topic of whether and how applications can be changed should be considered carefully by the Working Group. Chat excerpt: Susan Payne: +1 Greg Donna Austin, Neustar: @Greg, would that include new letters of support for an application that come in after the closing date for applications? Greg Shatan: @Donna, my gut reaction is yes. - 3.1.3 - The RySG, BRG, and Afilias had concerns with the standing requirements for Recommendation 20. - When we talk about standing, it's important to establish standing before the objection moves forward. Otherwise community applicants must defend against objections that do not have standing. - 3.1.4 -BC, RySG, BRG, and Afilias pointed to inconsistencies. - If all examples of inconsistencies are examples of singular/plural issues and we are addressing that issue with a specific rule, then that concern about inconsistency is addressed - INTA provided additional suggestions on this topic -3.1.5 - dotgay provided evidence of gaming. - dotgay, RySG, and Afilias made suggestions to reduce gaming. - There is evidence that some parties worked to derail community applications. Recommendations in CC2 feedback should be considered carefully to prevent similar actions from occurring in subsequent procedures. Chat excerpt: Donna Austin, Neustar: what's the status of ICANN's review of CPE? isn't that looking at inconsistencies? Jim Prendergast: @donna - no one knows - been over a year. Jim Prendergast: Jamie probably has the best read as he is directly impacted Donna Austin, Neustar: @Jim, what was the SLA for finishing? Jamie Baxter | dotgay: it would be great if staff could help in providing an update on the status of the CPE investigation and the FTI findings that ICANN has been holding onto for several weeks now. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: for the record it has been 1 year and 4 months since the Board directed the CEO to launch the CPE investigation - Proposal from the registries on string similarity got traction on previous calls. The document will be addressed in the new year on upcoming calls. Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0

AC Recording, attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes call on Tuesday, 12 December 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Dec. 12, 2017

Dec. 12, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance, Adobe Connect chat and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 12 December 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p6fto3ikgxh/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/RQxyB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

Agenda & Materials for WT3 Mtg on 12 December @ 15:00 UTC
by Robin Gross Dec. 12, 2017

Dec. 12, 2017

All, In preparation for our WT3 call tomorrow, Tuesday, 12 December 2017 @ 15:00 UTC, please see below for our proposed discussion agenda. We will conclude discussion of CC2 on community and also get into CC2 on objections. The related documents attached attached to this email. I hope you will join the discussion. Thank you. Best, Robin Discussion Agenda 1. Welcome & Review of Agenda 2. Updates to SOI 3. Plenary Update 5. Review of Work Plan for WT3 Through March 2018 (attached) 6. Conclude Review of CC2 on “Community” Applications (below & attached) 7. Review of CC2 on “Objections” (below & attached) 8. AOB 5. Conclude Review of “communities” in CC2 3.3.4 - Were the rights of communities (e.g., freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and principle of non-discrimination) infringed by the New gTLD Program? Please provide specific examples.  3.3.5 - Besides CPE, are there other aspects of the New gTLD Program related to communities that should be considered in a more holistic fashion? For instance, in the 2012 round, the claim to support a community is largely only relevant when resolving string contention. Do you think community applications should be structured and/or evaluated differently than other applications? 6. Review of CC2 on “Objections” 3.1.1 - Do you think that the policy recommendations (Recommendations 2, 3, 6, and 20) require any modifications? If so, what would you suggest? 3.1.2 - Do you believe that those recommendations (which led to the establishment of the String Confusion, Legal Rights, Limited Public Interest, and Community Objections grounds) were implemented effectively and in the spirit of the original policy recommendations? If no, please provide examples. 3.1.3 - Do you believe there were any issues with standing requirements as defined in the Applicant 3.1.4 - Do you believe there is evidence of decisions made by objection dispute panels that were inconsistent with other similar objections, the original policy recommendations, and/or the AGB? Please explain. 3.1.5 - Are you aware of any instances where any party or parties attempted to ‘game’ the Objection procedures in the 2012 round? If so, please provide examples and any evidence you may have available. 3.1.6 - Do you believe that the use of an Independent Objector (IO) is warranted in future application processes? If not, then why? If yes, then would you propose any restrictions or modifications be placed on the IO in future rounds? 3.1.7 - Do you believe that parties to disputes should be able to choose between 1 and 3 member panels and should the costs of objections reflect that choice? 3.1.8. - Is clearer guidance needed in regards to consolidation of objections? Please explain. 3.1.9 - Many community members have highlighted the high costs of objections. Do you believe that the costs of objections created a negative impact on their usage? If so, do you have suggestions for improving this issue? Are there issues beyond cost that might impact access, by various parties, to objections? 3.1.10 - Do you feel that GAC Early Warnings were helpful in identifying potential concerns with applications? Do you have suggestions on how to mitigate concerns identified in GAC Early Warnings? 3.1.11 - What improvements and clarifications should be made to GAC Advice procedures? What mitigation mechanisms are needed to respond to GAC Advice? How can timelines be made more precise?

3 2