Thanks, Mike. My apologies, the gTLDs were recommended to be permanently reserved. This is an important distinction that I inadvertently overlooked. My concern is that the economic desires of a few registries and motivated stakeholders seem to be driving the push to release the gTLDs, which is illustrated by the August 24, 2016 letter to the Board from certain of the applicants for the gTLDs. One proposed solution is to give private network operators notice of the risks of a newly delegated gTLD in the form of an “information and education campaign” that provides the operators the opportunity to stop/prevent leaking queries. But why should the burden and economic cost of the registries’ for-profit business fall upon these businesses? This frankly seems completely incongruent with much of the spirit of ICANN policy and also may also be a good way to get sued. Whether the name collision issue is overstated is another issue. The independent advisors retained to analyze the name collision issue by ICANN concluded otherwise in 2013-2014, though changed circumstances could compel a different conclusion now. I do not know the answer. I have noticed that the majority of parties asserting the problem is overstated have an economic interest in minimizing the problem. Nathaniel W. Edwards Counsel 602.262.5367 office 602.748.2530 fax nedwards@lrrc.com<mailto:nedwards@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D23061.A219B380] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP 201 East Washington Street, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2595 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 11:36 AM To: Edwards, Nathaniel Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 SubTeam Meeting 27 October .home, .corp and .mail are not permanently reserved. They are indefinitely in limbo, at moment. But generally I agree that in future rounds -- as should have happened in this last round -- there needs to be much more certainty about what is not allowed, and the Board and Staff must have far less discretion to create new rules on the fly. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Edwards, Nathaniel <NEdwards@lrrc.com<mailto:NEdwards@lrrc.com>> wrote: My apologies and regrets for not being able to attend the meeting this morning. The Adobe Connect link resolved to a page that stated “resource not found.” On the topic of name collision, I do not believe it is helpful to the next round to revisit permanently reserved names. The more pertinent question, already included in the questions for JAS, is whether there are any strings that were not applied for in the first round that could be deemed too high risk to delegate in subsequent rounds. My view is that the lone goal with respect to name collisions should be to inform potential applicants of all reserved gTLDs prior to significant allocation of resources to an application for a reserved gTLD in the next round. This goal does not require revisiting names that have already been permanently reserved based on commissioned reports and public comment. The iniquity on each applicant for .home, .mail and .corp was not that it was not delegated the gTLD. There were many competing applications for the now permanently reserved names. Any individual applicant’s chances of delegation were quite low. The iniquity was that the applicants invested substantial resources in applications for gTLDs that it turned out were never available at all. Best regards, Nate Nathaniel W. Edwards Counsel 602.262.5367<tel:602.262.5367> office 602.748.2530<tel:602.748.2530> fax nedwards@lrrc.com<mailto:nedwards@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D23049.97D4D7A0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP 201 East Washington Street, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2595 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 8:58 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 SubTeam Meeting 27 October Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 27 October. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+4+Meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 27 October Action Items: 1. Update the JAS questions in the Google Doc with the suggested additions. 2. Avri and Jeff will draft a letter for GDD concerning contacting the JAS. 3. Send the final version of the outreach questions, as well as the JAS questions, to the Sub Team WT4 list. Send to the community and JAS after Hyderabad. Discussion Notes: 1. Update from WG activities • The next meeting is a face-to-face meeting in Hyderabad, Thursday, 03 November, 13:45-18:30. See: https://icann572016.sched.org/event/8cxk/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures... and remote access at: https://participate.icann.org/hyd57-hall6. • The Working Group and Work Track Sub Teams are working on outreach questions. • The next call will be scheduled in the last week of November. A notice will be sent. 2. Actions from meeting #3 and Specific Outreach Questions (Continued): Referencing the slides -- slide 5. Also, see the questions at https://docs.google.com/forms/d/147Jn259tNHjFEcZyzPrCWyv8y7GmBVaVL_xVVZa9_G4.... Specific questions for JAS Advisors on Application Quality Control and Name Collisions. • Should we ask more generally: “Under what set of circumstances could .corp, .home, and .mail be released as TLDs? Under what, if any...” • Ask questions that would directly impact the outcome of the next round, not the current round. • The question could be added to the third bullet point under name collisions: "Are there circumstances where strings considered high risk could be released. "Based on data from the first round, can the controlled interruption period be reduced in future rounds..." • Add: "What if any circumstances could be released under BP3." Add Text for controlled Interruptions. • From staff: Could provide these to GDD staff since they liaise with JAS. I think they may have suggestions concerning the questions too. • We will write to GDD asking them for them to let us contact JAS directly, but wouldn't suggest having staff revise the questions. • Referencing the outreach questions (slide 7), for Hyderabad and also for community input. Might need to work out to the ccNSO too. ________________________________ 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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 ________________________________ 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.