Hi All, Jeff has already addressed incorporating feedback from public comment. However, to supplement what Anne has already shared, the resolutions made by the NGPC was "to defer moving forward with the contracting process for applicants" of such strings at the time. However, additionally, at the NGPC meeting dated 21 June 2015, a resolution was taken, "that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program". Please see https://features.icann.org/gac-category-2-safeguard-advice-%E2%80%93-exclusi... These applicants and the issue of closed generics has not been resolved and is still a heated debate as Jim has pointed out. More about this can be reviewed in the deliberations of the initial report, as well. We do look forward to additional public comment that may assist in coming to a final resolution. Kind regards, Michael Flemming On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:37 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
I see the following NGPC Resolution (taken after public comment on the issues) which contemplated further consultation with the GAC re the Category II Safeguards issue of “Restricted and Exclusive Registry Access”:
“Resolved (2013.06.25.NG06), the NGPC directs staff to defer moving forward with the contracting process for applicants seeking to impose exclusive registry access for "generic strings" to a single person or entity and/or that person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement), pending a dialogue with the GAC.”
Please note that 2.9(c) of the RA defines “Affiliates” as follows:
“2.9…(c) For the purposes of this Agreement: (i) “Affiliate” means a person or entity that, directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, the person or entity specified, and (ii) “control” (including the terms “controlled by” and “under common control with”) means the possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management or policies of a person or entity, whether through the ownership of securities, as trustee or executor, by serving as an employee or a member of a board of directors or equivalent governing body, by contract, by credit arrangement or otherwise.”
*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 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh *Sent:* Monday, June 11, 2018 3:25 PM *To:* lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; Drazek, Keith *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Reminder of Meetings this Week / Panama Schedule
It's contentious because the Board decision was made in complete 'top-down' fashion. Not only without real community input, but also actually CONTRARY to the GNSO policy and AGB which *allowed* closed generics. No public interest has ever been identified for treating TLDs different than generic .com domains, for example.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 2:46 PM, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Good eveniong:
this is one of the most contentious issues ...
In what respect? THE Board decision on the last round seems to me to be quite enough.
1. If the applicant has an uncontested right to a name, then Okay, but I fail to see what the business model or other advantages might be.
2. If the application is for a Closed TLD on the basis of a name (dictionary, Geographical or other) to which the applicant has NO prior right, then NO.
CW
El 11 de junio de 2018 a las 22:58 Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM> escribió:
Ok – that does help – thanks
*From:* Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> *Sent:* Monday, June 11, 2018 4:39 PM *To:* Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Cc:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> *Subject:* RE: Reminder of Meetings this Week / Panama Schedule
Thanks Jim. Of course we will wait and incorporate all of the feedback we get from the public comment period. After all that the purpose of the public comment period. The purpose of the face to face meetings in Panama are “to develop the tools we need to complete our work”. So the topic is not what IS (OR WILL BE) our position on this highly contentious issue. But, what are some of the tools we can use at our disposal (or that we need from elsewhere) to get to a final recommendation. In other words, it is a strategic planning exercise, on how we as a group can get to the final report with a recommendation that of course incorporates all feedback. Another way to look at this is how can we incentivize the group to get to a final recommendation.
I hope that helps.
*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 <jeff.neuman@valideus.com>* or *jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>*
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw
*From:* Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM> *Sent:* Monday, June 11, 2018 3:52 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Cc:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> *Subject:* RE: Reminder of Meetings this Week / Panama Schedule
Thanks Jeff.
Have one question on the closed generics issue. The way you have it written seems to put the cart before the horse.
As the draft preliminary report stated, this is one of the most contentious issues we have on our plate with a wide range of opinions and no clear indication of consensus. And as a result, we are putting several questions and options out to the community for their feedback. Feedback meant to inform the deliberations of this group.
How does this group “move towards a final proposal” in a few weeks’ time without waiting for the feedback we are asking for? I fear that if we did that, it sends a terrible signal to the broader community that while we are asking for their feedback, we are not really interested in it and are moving on without it.
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman *Sent:* Monday, June 11, 2018 3:06 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Cc:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Reminder of Meetings this Week / Panama Schedule
Dear SubPro WG Members and Observers,
First, we wanted to remind you that this week we will have *2 Full Working Group *calls and one call the week of June 18th to finalize all of the materials for the Preliminary Report*. *The calls are at:
- Tuesday, June 12: 03:00 UTC (For those in the US, that means 11:00 pm on the East Coast and 8:00 pm on the West Coast tonight) - Thursday, June 14: 20:00 UTC - Monday, June 18: 15:00 UTC
Second, as you are aware, we are fast approaching ICANN 62 in Panama in just a few short weeks. The entire leadership team is actively preparing for our scheduled 5 face to face sessions. Those sessions are currently scheduled for:
- SubPro WG Work Tracks 1-4 Session 1: Monday, June 25: 9:00 – 10:15 (Local Panama Time) - SubPro WG Work Tracks 1-4 Session 2: Monday, June 25: 10:30 – 12:00 (Local Panama Time) - SubPro WG Work Track 5 Session 1: Monday, June 25: 15:15 – 16:45 (Local Panama Time) - SubPro WG Work Tracks 1-4 Session 3: Thursday, June 28: 13:30 – 15:00 (Local Panama Time) - SubPro WG Work Track 5 Session 2: Thursday, June 28: 15:15 – 16:45 (Local Panama Time)
The leadership team is aware that there are a number of conflicting sessions that have been scheduled during the times that we are scheduled to meet and that as a result many of you will be in a position of having to decide which sessions to attend. We sincerely hope that you can attend all of our meetings.
Because this is the Policy Forum, a meeting that is structured to further our policy development work, we are planning some critical interactive sessions that will enable us as a group to move forward with some of our most contentious issues. Although the Initial Report will hopefully be out by the time that we are in Panama, there is still a lot of work ahead of us as we hit the home stretch working towards a final report. Completion of our Final Report is a key gating item before the implementation work for the next application window for new gTLDs to begin. As a reminder, the plan is to publish the Initial Report before Panama, but not start the Public Comment period prior to the ICANN Meeting. We will likely start the comment period the week after the ICANN meeting. We will discuss this again on the call tonight/tomorrow.
With respect to Work Tracks 1-4, the leadership team will likely be finalizing the list of topics to be discussed over the next week, but those topics are likely to include: (a) working towards a final proposal on exclusive use / closed generic TLDs, (b) the use of Private Auctions to resolve string contention, and (c) working on deliverables expected to be delivered to us by the CCT Review Team. We will likely be breaking up into smaller groups during the scheduled sessions to provide everyone with the opportunity to weigh in on these topics and to develop the tools we need to complete our work. The sessions in Panama will be the only chance to do this in a face to face setting and will be used to decide how we move ahead.
For Work Track 5, the four Co-Leaders will be reaching out to you all shortly on its finalized agendas.
We understand that you have some difficult choices on how to prioritize your time at ICANN 62 and sincerely hope that you attend our sessions. There will be recordings, notes and transcripts from all of the meetings and if you are unable to attend, you will still nonetheless be expected to have reviewed those materials before our next meeting after ICANN 62.
Best regards,
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
Jeff Neuman
SubPro PDP Co-Chairs
*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 <jeff.neuman@valideus.com>* or *jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>*
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org 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 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
