Dear WT4 members, The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place for 60 minutes on Thursday, 01 March 2018 at 20:00 UTC, 21:00 Brussels, 20:00 London, 12:00 Los Angeles, 15:00 Washington DC; Friday 02 March, 04:00 Singapore, 05:00 Tokyo, 07:00 Sydney. The proposed agenda, as previously mentioned during the last WT4 call, is as follows: 1. Welcome, SOI updates 2. WG Co-chairs guidance on Initial Report 3. Registry System Testing 4. AOB Since RST (Registry System Testing) was described in AGB as PDT (Pre-Delegation Testing), reading section 5.2 is recommended: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/transition-delegation-04jun12-e... More documents are available at ICANN's RST website, https://www.icann.org/resources/registry-system-testing <https://www.icann.org/resources/registry-system-testing> , of which this chart - https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/rst-1280x720-31jul17-en.jpg <https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/rst-1280x720-31jul17-en.jpg> - is an useful high-level summary. For WG members, please use the instructions in the calendar invite for connecting to AC and phone bridge, with phone bridge recommended for those willing to speak. Best, CLO & Rubens
Thanks Rubens. Regarding AOB, I had previously raised issues in relation to topics discussed in Call #21 and was assured that these would be addressed in upcoming calls. A copy of my e-mail of January 17 concerning these issues is again attached. In the plenary meeting on Monday, I requested that these issues be added to the agenda for the March 1 call. My concern is that the issues will be skipped. It seems that a draft Initial Report is imminent. Thus, these issues should be raised for further discussion in AOB so that the work of the group on those issues can be accurately reflected in the draft Initial Report before it goes out for public comment. A very short summary of the noted issues appears in bullet point form below: 1. Aggregated technical evaluation should not affect the order of processing applications. Kurt Pritz objected to the “as much as feasible” language in the slides and stated “Additional technical evaluation should not retard or slow down applications….they should retain their place in queue and should not be penalized in any way from a timing standpoint.” This issue should be raised for public comment. 2. Issue Still to be Defined – whether a new gTLD applicant should or should not be required to disclose planned new services at the time of application. This is an important question for public comment in that the current policy requires such disclosure where as several in the group commented that they disfavor public disclosure of new services and favor the RSEP process. This also relates to Question 18 of the application. Three straw models were proposed and discussed. Friendly amendments were offered, but no final recommended model was adopted by the group. Will all three models go out for public comment? 3. Name Collisions – Items which should be put out for public comment are: (a) Should ICANN be directly responsible for controlled interruption rather than the registries? (b) What should be the period of controlled interruption? (c) Re the proposal for “do not apply” and “exercise care” lists, as well as low and medium risk categories, we need public comment on how to establish standards for these lists so that our input can be provided to the SSAC, and (d) we need public comment on whether or not applicants should be able to propose name collision mitigation plans on an individual string-by-string basis and what mechanism, if any, could be put in place to approve such an individualized mitigation plan. (Again, this will be important for providing input to the SSAC.) The above issues should be highlighted in the Initial Report. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D3B099.F3BB0040] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 7:29 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] WT4 Call #25 Dear WT4 members, The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place for 60 minutes on Thursday, 01 March 2018 at 20:00 UTC, 21:00 Brussels, 20:00 London, 12:00 Los Angeles, 15:00 Washington DC; Friday 02 March, 04:00 Singapore, 05:00 Tokyo, 07:00 Sydney. The proposed agenda, as previously mentioned during the last WT4 call, is as follows: 1. Welcome, SOI updates 2. WG Co-chairs guidance on Initial Report 3. Registry System Testing 4. AOB Since RST (Registry System Testing) was described in AGB as PDT (Pre-Delegation Testing), reading section 5.2 is recommended: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/transition-delegation-04jun12-e... More documents are available at ICANN's RST website, https://www.icann.org/resources/registry-system-testing , of which this chart - https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/rst-1280x720-31jul17-en.jpg - is an useful high-level summary. For WG members, please use the instructions in the calendar invite for connecting to AC and phone bridge, with phone bridge recommended for those willing to speak. Best, CLO & 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.
Anne, I understand that you suggested these issues to be added. Responses inline.
Em 28 de fev de 2018, à(s) 17:42:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> escreveu:
Thanks Rubens. Regarding AOB, I had previously raised issues in relation to topics discussed in Call #21 and was assured that these would be addressed in upcoming calls. A copy of my e-mail of January 17 concerning these issues is again attached.
In the plenary meeting on Monday, I requested that these issues be added to the agenda for the March 1 call. My concern is that the issues will be skipped. It seems that a draft Initial Report is imminent. Thus, these issues should be raised for further discussion in AOB so that the work of the group on those issues can be accurately reflected in the draft Initial Report before it goes out for public comment.
Call #25 is not the only discussion vehicle until initial report is complete.
A very short summary of the noted issues appears in bullet point form below:
1. Aggregated technical evaluation should not affect the order of processing applications. Kurt Pritz objected to the “as much as feasible” language in the slides and stated “Additional technical evaluation should not retard or slow down applications….they should retain their place in queue and should not be penalized in any way from a timing standpoint.” This issue should be raised for public comment.
I remember that discussion surfacing during the registry services discussion, but it indeed might be bigger than that. It's also likely bigger than WT4, since other processing speed differences might rise from many other factors. On WG co-chairs and WT1 co-chairs preference on whether to discuss this holistically I'll defer to them in discussing it in WT1 or in Full WG, but we still can discuss this topic within the narrow focus of the registry services theme.
2. Issue Still to be Defined – whether a new gTLD applicant should or should not be required to disclose planned new services at the time of application. This is an important question for public comment in that the current policy requires such disclosure where as several in the group commented that they disfavor public disclosure of new services and favor the RSEP process. This also relates to Question 18 of the application. Three straw models were proposed and discussed. Friendly amendments were offered, but no final recommended model was adopted by the group. Will all three models go out for public comment?
The registry services discussion was picked as the topic for our F2F meeting in Puerto Rico. I don't know the outcome of that discussion because it has yet to occur... so I'll ask for a rain check in answering the initial report part of it. But on current status, we need to remember that RSEP policy (different from RSEP procedure and RSEP process) for already established registries, even those that signed a contract 1 day before applying to offer a registry service, is a policy that's not in the WG charter to revise... so there is no opposition between the two. We can't change the RSEP policy, so we can only pick different options for what happens during application phase.
3. Name Collisions – Items which should be put out for public comment are:
(a) Should ICANN be directly responsible for controlled interruption rather than the registries? (b) What should be the period of controlled interruption? (c) Re the proposal for “do not apply” and “exercise care” lists, as well as low and medium risk categories, we need public comment on how to establish standards for these lists so that our input can be provided to the SSAC, and (d) we need public comment on whether or not applicants should be able to propose name collision mitigation plans on an individual string-by-string basis and what mechanism, if any, could be put in place to approve such an individualized mitigation plan. (Again, this will be important for providing input to the SSAC.)
Public comment is exactly why reports are published... but when we do have a proposal, we can and should say what that is. For instance, (a) (b) and (d) already have... in (c) we indeed don't have (yet). Also of notice is that SSAC hasn't asked for our input, so what we can do is publish GNSO perspective and if they have an input they want the give, they will tell us. There are SSAC members participating in WT4, there are SSAC members in technical forums we have and will continue reaching out to, so while it's not a secret what is being "baked" in WT4, and while they represent themselves and not SSAC in these fora, it's safe to assume they are aware of WT4 work. SAC086, 094 and 100 were also sent to our benefit in SubPro discussions. Rubens
Rubens, Your responses all seem to indicate that the draft Initial Report will not issue until after Puerto Rico. The Sub Pro Leaders had indicated otherwise. Which is it? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D3B0A3.1E425DA0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br] Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 2:12 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org; Jeff Neuman; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] WT4 Call #25 Importance: High Anne, I understand that you suggested these issues to be added. Responses inline. Em 28 de fev de 2018, à(s) 17:42:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> escreveu: Thanks Rubens. Regarding AOB, I had previously raised issues in relation to topics discussed in Call #21 and was assured that these would be addressed in upcoming calls. A copy of my e-mail of January 17 concerning these issues is again attached. In the plenary meeting on Monday, I requested that these issues be added to the agenda for the March 1 call. My concern is that the issues will be skipped. It seems that a draft Initial Report is imminent. Thus, these issues should be raised for further discussion in AOB so that the work of the group on those issues can be accurately reflected in the draft Initial Report before it goes out for public comment. Call #25 is not the only discussion vehicle until initial report is complete. A very short summary of the noted issues appears in bullet point form below: 1. Aggregated technical evaluation should not affect the order of processing applications. Kurt Pritz objected to the “as much as feasible” language in the slides and stated “Additional technical evaluation should not retard or slow down applications….they should retain their place in queue and should not be penalized in any way from a timing standpoint.” This issue should be raised for public comment. I remember that discussion surfacing during the registry services discussion, but it indeed might be bigger than that. It's also likely bigger than WT4, since other processing speed differences might rise from many other factors. On WG co-chairs and WT1 co-chairs preference on whether to discuss this holistically I'll defer to them in discussing it in WT1 or in Full WG, but we still can discuss this topic within the narrow focus of the registry services theme. 2. Issue Still to be Defined – whether a new gTLD applicant should or should not be required to disclose planned new services at the time of application. This is an important question for public comment in that the current policy requires such disclosure where as several in the group commented that they disfavor public disclosure of new services and favor the RSEP process. This also relates to Question 18 of the application. Three straw models were proposed and discussed. Friendly amendments were offered, but no final recommended model was adopted by the group. Will all three models go out for public comment? The registry services discussion was picked as the topic for our F2F meeting in Puerto Rico. I don't know the outcome of that discussion because it has yet to occur... so I'll ask for a rain check in answering the initial report part of it. But on current status, we need to remember that RSEP policy (different from RSEP procedure and RSEP process) for already established registries, even those that signed a contract 1 day before applying to offer a registry service, is a policy that's not in the WG charter to revise... so there is no opposition between the two. We can't change the RSEP policy, so we can only pick different options for what happens during application phase. 3. Name Collisions – Items which should be put out for public comment are: (a) Should ICANN be directly responsible for controlled interruption rather than the registries? (b) What should be the period of controlled interruption? (c) Re the proposal for “do not apply” and “exercise care” lists, as well as low and medium risk categories, we need public comment on how to establish standards for these lists so that our input can be provided to the SSAC, and (d) we need public comment on whether or not applicants should be able to propose name collision mitigation plans on an individual string-by-string basis and what mechanism, if any, could be put in place to approve such an individualized mitigation plan. (Again, this will be important for providing input to the SSAC.) Public comment is exactly why reports are published... but when we do have a proposal, we can and should say what that is. For instance, (a) (b) and (d) already have... in (c) we indeed don't have (yet). Also of notice is that SSAC hasn't asked for our input, so what we can do is publish GNSO perspective and if they have an input they want the give, they will tell us. There are SSAC members participating in WT4, there are SSAC members in technical forums we have and will continue reaching out to, so while it's not a secret what is being "baked" in WT4, and while they represent themselves and not SSAC in these fora, it's safe to assume they are aware of WT4 work. SAC086, 094 and 100 were also sent to our benefit in SubPro discussions. 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.
Anne, Draft initial report is not being built in a waterfall model, but rather in an interactive construction one. Initial report (the non-draft one) will issue after Puerto Rico, but a workspace for the draft one will be released before travel cycle to Puerto Rico starts. You will notice then that draft report might look different every second, because it is a work in progress. Rubens
Em 28 de fev de 2018, à(s) 18:47:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> escreveu:
Rubens, Your responses all seem to indicate that the draft Initial Report will not issue until after Puerto Rico. The Sub Pro Leaders had indicated otherwise. Which is it? Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br] Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 2:12 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org; Jeff Neuman; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] WT4 Call #25 Importance: High
Anne,
I understand that you suggested these issues to be added. Responses inline.
Em 28 de fev de 2018, à(s) 17:42:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> escreveu:
Thanks Rubens. Regarding AOB, I had previously raised issues in relation to topics discussed in Call #21 and was assured that these would be addressed in upcoming calls. A copy of my e-mail of January 17 concerning these issues is again attached.
In the plenary meeting on Monday, I requested that these issues be added to the agenda for the March 1 call. My concern is that the issues will be skipped. It seems that a draft Initial Report is imminent. Thus, these issues should be raised for further discussion in AOB so that the work of the group on those issues can be accurately reflected in the draft Initial Report before it goes out for public comment.
Call #25 is not the only discussion vehicle until initial report is complete.
A very short summary of the noted issues appears in bullet point form below:
1. Aggregated technical evaluation should not affect the order of processing applications. Kurt Pritz objected to the “as much as feasible” language in the slides and stated “Additional technical evaluation should not retard or slow down applications….they should retain their place in queue and should not be penalized in any way from a timing standpoint.” This issue should be raised for public comment.
I remember that discussion surfacing during the registry services discussion, but it indeed might be bigger than that. It's also likely bigger than WT4, since other processing speed differences might rise from many other factors. On WG co-chairs and WT1 co-chairs preference on whether to discuss this holistically I'll defer to them in discussing it in WT1 or in Full WG, but we still can discuss this topic within the narrow focus of the registry services theme.
2. Issue Still to be Defined – whether a new gTLD applicant should or should not be required to disclose planned new services at the time of application. This is an important question for public comment in that the current policy requires such disclosure where as several in the group commented that they disfavor public disclosure of new services and favor the RSEP process. This also relates to Question 18 of the application. Three straw models were proposed and discussed. Friendly amendments were offered, but no final recommended model was adopted by the group. Will all three models go out for public comment?
The registry services discussion was picked as the topic for our F2F meeting in Puerto Rico. I don't know the outcome of that discussion because it has yet to occur... so I'll ask for a rain check in answering the initial report part of it.
But on current status, we need to remember that RSEP policy (different from RSEP procedure and RSEP process) for already established registries, even those that signed a contract 1 day before applying to offer a registry service, is a policy that's not in the WG charter to revise... so there is no opposition between the two. We can't change the RSEP policy, so we can only pick different options for what happens during application phase.
3. Name Collisions – Items which should be put out for public comment are:
(a) Should ICANN be directly responsible for controlled interruption rather than the registries? (b) What should be the period of controlled interruption? (c) Re the proposal for “do not apply” and “exercise care” lists, as well as low and medium risk categories, we need public comment on how to establish standards for these lists so that our input can be provided to the SSAC, and (d) we need public comment on whether or not applicants should be able to propose name collision mitigation plans on an individual string-by-string basis and what mechanism, if any, could be put in place to approve such an individualized mitigation plan. (Again, this will be important for providing input to the SSAC.)
Public comment is exactly why reports are published... but when we do have a proposal, we can and should say what that is. For instance, (a) (b) and (d) already have... in (c) we indeed don't have (yet). Also of notice is that SSAC hasn't asked for our input, so what we can do is publish GNSO perspective and if they have an input they want the give, they will tell us. There are SSAC members participating in WT4, there are SSAC members in technical forums we have and will continue reaching out to, so while it's not a secret what is being "baked" in WT4, and while they represent themselves and not SSAC in these fora, it's safe to assume they are aware of WT4 work. SAC086, 094 and 100 were also sent to our benefit in SubPro discussions.
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.
Just to add to this conversation, although we are trying to incorporate some consistency in how each section looks and the order in which topics appear, much of the real substance will be taken from those documents, power points, etc. which each of the work tracks have been reviewing these past few months. Those materials are constantly being updated to make sure that we have adequately captured the feedback we have received during our calls, community comments, live meetings and e-mail discussions. I hope that makes sense. 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<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br] Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:11 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] WT4 Call #25 Anne, Draft initial report is not being built in a waterfall model, but rather in an interactive construction one. Initial report (the non-draft one) will issue after Puerto Rico, but a workspace for the draft one will be released before travel cycle to Puerto Rico starts. You will notice then that draft report might look different every second, because it is a work in progress. Rubens Em 28 de fev de 2018, à(s) 18:47:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> escreveu: Rubens, Your responses all seem to indicate that the draft Initial Report will not issue until after Puerto Rico. The Sub Pro Leaders had indicated otherwise. Which is it? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br] Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 2:12 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>; Jeff Neuman; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] WT4 Call #25 Importance: High Anne, I understand that you suggested these issues to be added. Responses inline. Em 28 de fev de 2018, à(s) 17:42:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> escreveu: Thanks Rubens. Regarding AOB, I had previously raised issues in relation to topics discussed in Call #21 and was assured that these would be addressed in upcoming calls. A copy of my e-mail of January 17 concerning these issues is again attached. In the plenary meeting on Monday, I requested that these issues be added to the agenda for the March 1 call. My concern is that the issues will be skipped. It seems that a draft Initial Report is imminent. Thus, these issues should be raised for further discussion in AOB so that the work of the group on those issues can be accurately reflected in the draft Initial Report before it goes out for public comment. Call #25 is not the only discussion vehicle until initial report is complete. A very short summary of the noted issues appears in bullet point form below: 1. Aggregated technical evaluation should not affect the order of processing applications. Kurt Pritz objected to the “as much as feasible” language in the slides and stated “Additional technical evaluation should not retard or slow down applications….they should retain their place in queue and should not be penalized in any way from a timing standpoint.” This issue should be raised for public comment. I remember that discussion surfacing during the registry services discussion, but it indeed might be bigger than that. It's also likely bigger than WT4, since other processing speed differences might rise from many other factors. On WG co-chairs and WT1 co-chairs preference on whether to discuss this holistically I'll defer to them in discussing it in WT1 or in Full WG, but we still can discuss this topic within the narrow focus of the registry services theme. 2. Issue Still to be Defined – whether a new gTLD applicant should or should not be required to disclose planned new services at the time of application. This is an important question for public comment in that the current policy requires such disclosure where as several in the group commented that they disfavor public disclosure of new services and favor the RSEP process. This also relates to Question 18 of the application. Three straw models were proposed and discussed. Friendly amendments were offered, but no final recommended model was adopted by the group. Will all three models go out for public comment? The registry services discussion was picked as the topic for our F2F meeting in Puerto Rico. I don't know the outcome of that discussion because it has yet to occur... so I'll ask for a rain check in answering the initial report part of it. But on current status, we need to remember that RSEP policy (different from RSEP procedure and RSEP process) for already established registries, even those that signed a contract 1 day before applying to offer a registry service, is a policy that's not in the WG charter to revise... so there is no opposition between the two. We can't change the RSEP policy, so we can only pick different options for what happens during application phase. 3. Name Collisions – Items which should be put out for public comment are: (a) Should ICANN be directly responsible for controlled interruption rather than the registries? (b) What should be the period of controlled interruption? (c) Re the proposal for “do not apply” and “exercise care” lists, as well as low and medium risk categories, we need public comment on how to establish standards for these lists so that our input can be provided to the SSAC, and (d) we need public comment on whether or not applicants should be able to propose name collision mitigation plans on an individual string-by-string basis and what mechanism, if any, could be put in place to approve such an individualized mitigation plan. (Again, this will be important for providing input to the SSAC.) Public comment is exactly why reports are published... but when we do have a proposal, we can and should say what that is. For instance, (a) (b) and (d) already have... in (c) we indeed don't have (yet). Also of notice is that SSAC hasn't asked for our input, so what we can do is publish GNSO perspective and if they have an input they want the give, they will tell us. There are SSAC members participating in WT4, there are SSAC members in technical forums we have and will continue reaching out to, so while it's not a secret what is being "baked" in WT4, and while they represent themselves and not SSAC in these fora, it's safe to assume they are aware of WT4 work. SAC086, 094 and 100 were also sent to our benefit in SubPro discussions. 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.
Thanks Jeff. I’ll look for the updates to the slides for Work Track 4 concerning the issues outlined below from the November call whenever the draft Initial Report is provided. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D3B14E.34B997A0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:01 PM To: Rubens Kuhl; Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] WT4 Call #25 Just to add to this conversation, although we are trying to incorporate some consistency in how each section looks and the order in which topics appear, much of the real substance will be taken from those documents, power points, etc. which each of the work tracks have been reviewing these past few months. Those materials are constantly being updated to make sure that we have adequately captured the feedback we have received during our calls, community comments, live meetings and e-mail discussions. I hope that makes sense. 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<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br] Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:11 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] WT4 Call #25 Anne, Draft initial report is not being built in a waterfall model, but rather in an interactive construction one. Initial report (the non-draft one) will issue after Puerto Rico, but a workspace for the draft one will be released before travel cycle to Puerto Rico starts. You will notice then that draft report might look different every second, because it is a work in progress. Rubens Em 28 de fev de 2018, à(s) 18:47:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> escreveu: Rubens, Your responses all seem to indicate that the draft Initial Report will not issue until after Puerto Rico. The Sub Pro Leaders had indicated otherwise. Which is it? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br] Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 2:12 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>; Jeff Neuman; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] WT4 Call #25 Importance: High Anne, I understand that you suggested these issues to be added. Responses inline. Em 28 de fev de 2018, à(s) 17:42:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> escreveu: Thanks Rubens. Regarding AOB, I had previously raised issues in relation to topics discussed in Call #21 and was assured that these would be addressed in upcoming calls. A copy of my e-mail of January 17 concerning these issues is again attached. In the plenary meeting on Monday, I requested that these issues be added to the agenda for the March 1 call. My concern is that the issues will be skipped. It seems that a draft Initial Report is imminent. Thus, these issues should be raised for further discussion in AOB so that the work of the group on those issues can be accurately reflected in the draft Initial Report before it goes out for public comment. Call #25 is not the only discussion vehicle until initial report is complete. A very short summary of the noted issues appears in bullet point form below: 1. Aggregated technical evaluation should not affect the order of processing applications. Kurt Pritz objected to the “as much as feasible” language in the slides and stated “Additional technical evaluation should not retard or slow down applications….they should retain their place in queue and should not be penalized in any way from a timing standpoint.” This issue should be raised for public comment. I remember that discussion surfacing during the registry services discussion, but it indeed might be bigger than that. It's also likely bigger than WT4, since other processing speed differences might rise from many other factors. On WG co-chairs and WT1 co-chairs preference on whether to discuss this holistically I'll defer to them in discussing it in WT1 or in Full WG, but we still can discuss this topic within the narrow focus of the registry services theme. 2. Issue Still to be Defined – whether a new gTLD applicant should or should not be required to disclose planned new services at the time of application. This is an important question for public comment in that the current policy requires such disclosure where as several in the group commented that they disfavor public disclosure of new services and favor the RSEP process. This also relates to Question 18 of the application. Three straw models were proposed and discussed. Friendly amendments were offered, but no final recommended model was adopted by the group. Will all three models go out for public comment? The registry services discussion was picked as the topic for our F2F meeting in Puerto Rico. I don't know the outcome of that discussion because it has yet to occur... so I'll ask for a rain check in answering the initial report part of it. But on current status, we need to remember that RSEP policy (different from RSEP procedure and RSEP process) for already established registries, even those that signed a contract 1 day before applying to offer a registry service, is a policy that's not in the WG charter to revise... so there is no opposition between the two. We can't change the RSEP policy, so we can only pick different options for what happens during application phase. 3. Name Collisions – Items which should be put out for public comment are: (a) Should ICANN be directly responsible for controlled interruption rather than the registries? (b) What should be the period of controlled interruption? (c) Re the proposal for “do not apply” and “exercise care” lists, as well as low and medium risk categories, we need public comment on how to establish standards for these lists so that our input can be provided to the SSAC, and (d) we need public comment on whether or not applicants should be able to propose name collision mitigation plans on an individual string-by-string basis and what mechanism, if any, could be put in place to approve such an individualized mitigation plan. (Again, this will be important for providing input to the SSAC.) Public comment is exactly why reports are published... but when we do have a proposal, we can and should say what that is. For instance, (a) (b) and (d) already have... in (c) we indeed don't have (yet). Also of notice is that SSAC hasn't asked for our input, so what we can do is publish GNSO perspective and if they have an input they want the give, they will tell us. There are SSAC members participating in WT4, there are SSAC members in technical forums we have and will continue reaching out to, so while it's not a secret what is being "baked" in WT4, and while they represent themselves and not SSAC in these fora, it's safe to assume they are aware of WT4 work. SAC086, 094 and 100 were also sent to our benefit in SubPro discussions. 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. ________________________________ 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.
participants (3)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Jeff Neuman -
Rubens Kuhl