Dear Rubens: Thankyou. I am glad that some of these matters have already been considered. I am not in a position to comment in detail tonight; I shall join the other Work Tracks. But I must say now that I am not in favour of ‘objection’ processes. The requirement for global ex-ante information strikes me as exorbitant. Thus, unless persuaded to the contrary, I would expect an a priori approval process. In which case considerations of granularity and subsidiarity would be important. Regards Christopher

On 25 Mar 2018, at 21:43, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote:

Christopher,

The work track 1-4 co-chairs have been noticing the possible inter-relationships throughout the process, and those have been addressed. Even for WT5, the overlap consisting of additional reserved names and some names requiring letters of support/non-objection was also always envisioned... something like a geo objection was not, but that is something that can be harmonised and integrated with the objection process, if's that what WT5 ends up suggesting. That can be even done by WT5 by taking what has already been proposed, like number of panelists and fees bearing, and then defining standing and principles specifically to that process.

Even the possibility of adding more contractual requirements, if decided by WT5, can be dealt by with Geo PICs, something that was also foreseen... so I may be optimistic here, but I couldn't think of anything WT5 could come up with that wouldn't be easily integrated into the SubPro output.That doesn't prevent people's imagination to go beyond and actually find something that would be harder to harmonise... but considering the low likelihood, we can deal with it, if it happens, but only if it happens, instead of planning for something that likely won't happen.

Rubens

...

On 25 Mar 2018, at 14:29, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

Good afternoon:

I have considerable empathy with the concerns expressed by Greg here below I suggest that the current plan underestimates the inter-relationships between the Work Tracks, notably but not exclusively with WT5.

Regards

CW

...

On 24 Mar 2018, at 05:32, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:

I would like to raise a potential concern regarding the preliminary report/final report plan for this WG. Unlike most preliminary reports, this one will have a great many open issues and undecided options. As a result, the first time that the community will see the draft recommendations of the WG will be the final report, a role usually played by the preliminary report. That leaves us no room for error or uncertainty in the final report -- we can't bring it out for comment with significant open issues, if this is really intended to be the final report. That will result in a heavy lift to get this into "final" form straight from a fairly unsettled question-filled preliminary report. And what if the comments result in significant changes in the final report -- what happens? Do we have a supplemental final report (not really contemplated by the Charter)?

An alternative approach could be to put this report out as a "discussion draft," intended to spur discussion, and then follow that with the preliminary report with our "beta version" and then the final report. There is precedent for working groups making requests to the community for input or comments or information during the pendency of their work. This would allow the preliminary report to play its usual role.

Of course, this could raise timing issues. On the other hand, the cynic in me says that this plan to put out an undercooked preliminary report is intended to put timing ahead of fidelity to the PDP process. I'm not advocating form for the sake of form. Rather I think there are good reasons why the preliminary report is intended to be almost-ready-for-prime-time report, and not a sandbox/workshop/open kitchen for the community to join our "fun" and deliberations. (Maybe it's the "home version" of the Working Group....)

Failing that, I think we have to brace ourselves for the possibility that we could need a supplemental final draft. I suppose the advantage of that is that we look like we're on schedule for the next year or so....

Just my 2 cents,

Greg

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: It strikes me that to the extent that geo names may be defined more broadly than in the 2012 AGB, it might be a good compromise to establish an Objection process for those wider geo names rather than prohibiting applicants from applying altogether or requiring them to have permission first. The Objection would have to be supported by a substantial portion of the geo community described/implicated by the name, e.g. a particular region, and there would need to be a stated public policy reason for the Objection. Standing might be an issue in some cases and should always be resolved first, along with resolution of any conflicts of interest prior to the commencement of any substantive proceedings.

It would be great to see Track 5 come up to speed with Tracks 1 to 4 given that there has been a good deal of discussion over the last several years regarding this arena. It’s hard to see how we can all move forward without getting the geo names issues resolved first. Maybe no one wants another Objection process, but then how can we move toward a resolution when the varying interests are far apart? I would favor a new Objection process to resolve this. At that point, the community may be able to accept some of the wider definitions of geo names (not sure exactly how wide).

I would couple this one with the notion that if the applicant loses the Objection, its application fee will be refunded. Just to be clear, the process applicable to the names specified in the 2012 AGB would remain the same.

Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 <tel:(520)%20629-4428> office

520.879.4725 <tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax

AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________

<image002.png>

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 11:09 AM To: cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Annebeth B. Lange; Martin Sutton; Olga Cavalli; Javier Rua; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org>

Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps

Thanks Christopher.

I do not believe that any of the Work of Work Tracks 1-4 will impinge the activities of Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is limited in scope to only address issues of “geographic names at the top level”. Of course Work Track 5 is working on defining “geographic names” as part of its work.

To the extent that Work Track 5 believes that unique processes need to apply to “geographic names” including on business models for geographic names, free speech, predictability, objections, dispute resolution, etc., then Work Track 5 will need to address those and explain why geographic names at the top level need to be treated differently than what is recommended for Work Tracks 1-4.

If you have issues about IDNs in general, or any other issues on top level domains in general then those should be addressed in Work Tracks 1-4.

In short, I don’t believe there are issues at this point with operating on two different schedules. If, however, a conflict does arise, we will address it at that point in time.

Thanks.

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 <tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw

From: cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 1:26 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>; Annebeth B. Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>>; Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com <mailto:javrua@gmail.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps

Dear Jeff, Dear PDP friends and colleagues:

Thankyou. I understand the interest in moving forward towards a draft of the Initial Report. However, we should all be aware of the interrelationships between WT1-4 and WT5. WT5 should not be constrained by prior understandings reached in WT1-4.

In my view, resolution of the issues before WT5 will impinge directly on several related issues, including IDN TLDs, their Business Models, Predictably, freedom of speech and risk analysis.

Consequently, notwithstanding the décalage of the WT schedules, I consider that the first draft of an Initial Report should comprise input from the PDP as a whole.

Regards

Christopher Wilkinson

On 23 Mar 2018, at 03:28, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote:

Dear All Working Group Members/Observers & Work Tracks 1-4 Members/Observers,

You may have noticed that in the last day or so notes have been sent out cancelling certain Work Track and overall Working Group meetings. We wanted to provide the group with an explanation and information on where we are going from here.

Over the past year we have been broken out into Work Tracks to get through the voluminous amount of issues (both policy and some implementation) from the 2012 round of new gTLDs. Although there may be a couple of work track meetings over the next month to cover areas that we may not have covered (or may not have covered as in depth as we wanted), during the month of April, we will mostly operate as a full working group to get out an Initial Report.

ICANN staff and the Working Group Leaders (including Work Track 1-4 Leaders) are working on taking all of the materials and combining it into one Initial Report. This not only means taking all of the power points and working documents and turning those into prose, but also organizing the report in a manner that flows. As we discussed prior to, and at, ICANN 61, our goal is to organize the Initial Report in more of a chronological order starting with the Overarching Issues, Pre-Application Activities, Application Activities, Objections/public comment, Evaluation, Pre-delegation and Post Delegation. The goal is to have a draft of the substantive elements out to the full working group by the end of the first week of April (some of the more boilerplate oriented language may be filled in subsequently). This will give the full working group at least 3 weeks to review before the target date for publishing the Initial Report for public comment.

This will require that we really use e-mail for our comments and also that we will be scheduling 90 minute overall working group calls on April 9th, April 16th, and April 23rd.

As a reminder, the Initial Report will be set up in such a way as to describe the issues, provide preliminary recommendations (if we have them), and to present options for possible paths forward. In addition, we will be attempting to provide pointed questions on where we would really like to see public comment. We are NOT going to be issuing Consensus Calls for the recommendations or the content. Rather, we are going to try and have general agreement that the Initial Report is ready to go out for public comment. We will be very clear in the introduction to the report that we have not done consensus calls and the purposes for which we are presenting preliminary recommendations. We will be doing consensus calls for the final report later this year

This does not apply for Work Track 5. Work Track 5 is on a different schedule which will be communicated by the 4 Work Track 5 leaders.

Please let us know if you have any questions or comments.

Best regards,

Jeffrey J. Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr

Subsequent Procedures PDP Overall Chairs

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>

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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4>

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>

---

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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4>