With apologies, I’ll have to miss this call as I have a conflicting meeting. (As perhaps one of the few people on the WT who has used 4 Accountability Mechanisms – Request for Reconsideration, Request under
Documentary Disclosure Information Policy, Complaint to Ombudsman, and IRP – I regret having to miss the call, but will definitely read the transcript.)
Dear WT 3 Members:
Following on our conversation Tuesday, we have clarified with staff and the PDP leadership team that the 30 minutes WTs 1 & 3 will have with the GAC on Sunday in Abu Dhabi are not to present to the GAC, but rather
to ask questions of the GAC to try to draw out more detailed input from them on the issues covered in our CC2 questions and their prior GAC Advice. Therefore, our face to face PDP WG session on Saturday will not be preparation for the GAC meeting. It will
instead be the PDP membership’s time to discuss the input on communities received from CC2 responses and to look again at our strawbunny proposal defining what a community is.
With that being the case, we will proceed as planned with our next topics of Applicant Freedom of Expression and Accountability Mechanisms on our call this coming Tuesday, October 17th at 15:00. And,
although we only have 3 questions to cover, there is some significant input to review, so I would encourage you to read through the CC2 responses in full prior to the call.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp0gZra7U0/edit#gid=845153891
AGENDA:
1: Welcome
2. Updated SOIs
3. Pre-F2F meeting updates
4. Applicant Freedom of Expression:
3.2.1 Noting that the 2007 Final Report on new gTLDs tried to balance the rights of applicants (e.g., Principle G) and rights holders (Recommendation 3), do you believe that the program was successful in doing so? If not, do you have examples of where either
an applicant’s freedom of expression or a person or entity’s legal rights were infringed?
5. Accountability Mechanisms:
3.5.1 – Do you believe that the existing accountability mechanisms (Request for Reconsideration, Independent Review Process, and the Ombudsman) are adequate avenues to address issues encountered in the New gTLD Program?
3.5.2
– Should there be appeal mechanisms, specific to the New gTLD Program, introduced into the program? If yes, for what areas of the program (e.g., evaluations, objections, CPE)? Do you have suggestions for high-level requirements (e.g., if the appeal should
be limited to procedural and/or substantive issues, who conducts the review, who is the final arbiter, safeguards against abuse, etc.).
6. AOB
Until Tuesday,
Karen
____________________________
Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP
Brand Protection & Registry Operations Manager
Tel: + 1 919-531-6016
▪ Mobile: + 1 919-599-4356
▪
karen.day@sas.com
SAS Institute Inc.▪
SAS Campus Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA
www.sas.com
<image001.jpg>