Jeff et al,

Attached please see my “issues Sheet” in relation to Package 3.  One note of general concern for the Working Group is how we denote Dissenting Views.  Although the Dissenting View against prohibiting applications for the same string in subsequent rounds was discussed briefly in 2.2.3 on page 28, it was not noted with particularity and the rationale for the Dissenting View was not stated.  In fairness, I believe that the process for including Dissenting Views in the draft Final Report should call these out with more particularity in the text and should summarize the rationale provided for the Dissenting View.  I am raising this generally as it may be a concern for other participants in relation to different sections of the report.  (My specific suggested addition to the language of 2.2.3 appears in the attached Issues Sheet.)

 

By way of further example, a couple of participants have been vocal about a Dissenting View in relation to placing limits on the number of applications (Application Submission Limits in Section 2.2.5. c.).   While I personally have no view on this (and so it doesn’t appear in my Issues Sheet) I don’t think the draft on page 30 points to this Dissenting View with sufficient clarity.

 

Thank you,

Anne

 

 

Dear all, 

 

As discussed on the previous working group call on 7 May, the leadership team is releasing the third set of revised draft recommendations for your review.

 

1. There are 6 topics in package 3 here, beginning on page 24: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]

 

·         2.2.1 Continuing Subsequent Procedures

·         2.2.3 Applications Assessed in Rounds

·         2.2.5 Application Submission Limits

·         2.2.6 RSP Pre-Evaluation

·         2.3.3 Applicant Freedom of Expression

·         2.3.4 Universal Acceptance

 

2. Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format.

 

3. Deadline for comments is Thursday 14 May at 23:59 UTC

 

4. Comments will be tracked here:  https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw.

 

Best,

Steve

 

 

Steven Chan


Policy Director, GNSO Support

 

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536


                                                                  

Email: steve.chan@icann.org

Skype: steve.chan55

Mobile: +1.310.339.4410

 

Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/

Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO

Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar