P.S. I only point out Google and Amazon as members of the organization mentioned in 3.(c)  below because both are applicants for the .mail TLD (now “on hold” and frozen due to name collision issues).

 

For anyone who does not know, our firm represents the United States Postal Service.

 

Thank you,

Anne

 

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office

520.879.4725 fax

AAikman@lrrc.com

_____________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com

 

From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 1:33 PM
To: 'Rubens Kuhl'
Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017

 

1.       Yes – that is what I meant when I said “consider as an alternative’.

 

2.       Separately, could you please remind me what we said in Work Track 4 re registry rights in relation to idn equivalents to English TLDs owned by that registry?    (This came up in Work Track 3 as to string similarity issues.)

 

3.       Also, do we have any responses yet as to the request for input on revising the name collision framework (high risk, medium risk, low risk categories) as sent to

 

(a)    IETF

(b)   Ripe Labs

(c)    DNS Operations Analysis and Research Center (We note that Google is a Platinum Member and Amazon is a Bronze member)

 

Anne

 

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office

520.879.4725 fax

AAikman@lrrc.com

_____________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com

 

From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 12:21 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017

 

 

On Oct 11, 2017, at 4:09 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:

 

Rubens,

Are you saying that staff recommended stick with current policy and current AGB language in Question 23 as an alternative?

 

Nope, Staff alerted us that all 3 proposals are not that much different among each other and from current implementation, so they suggested it to also be considered in the whole process. Policy staff has a tradition of keeping a neutral standing and I would be surprised if they ever took position on anything, and they didn't in this case. I just tried to give credit were credit's due, since it was them that realised that. 

 

 

That said, I believe that moving forward comparing to current implementation will make sense for a good number of WT4 discussion topics, so this is likely to appear at some topics ahead. And looking ahead for the full WG Draft Report, I would be in favor in doing for the majority of themes, in fact. 

 

 

 

 

 

Rubens

 

 

 

 



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.