We may want to check the terms used in the new gTLD “status” pages for strings in contention. Language should likely be consistent with what is posted there by icann.org if possible. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D4623D.7CF22C80] 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] On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:21 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks for your reply, Jeff. Just on my first question, yes, I don't disagree with your explanation, but I did want to, if possible, establish the intent to the consequence of being found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution. Post AGB, additional statuses for applications were introduced during implementation phase, for eg. "Not Approved". As mentioned before, "withdrawing" implies to me a choice by the applicant, and in fact the "withdrawn" status explicitly states so at https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/advisories/application-contention-s.... Hence I was concerned about the ramification around choice by the applicant, not to mention any 'rights' as to refunds. I wonder if the term "non-approval" might be an appropriate alternative to "withdrawing", although I'm not sure if "non-approval" will then raise further complications to the AGB as drafted. Justine Chew ----- On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 02:34, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Thanks Justine. Your questions are good ones. On the first one, I believe ICANN only uses the terms “withdrawn” or “shall not proceed” in the Guidebook. I don’t believe the word termination is used in connection with an application. So, that is why that term was selected. On the second question the agreement/contract is the ICANN Registry Agreement and I agree with you that we should make it more clear in both parts of that sentence. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 8:45 AM To: steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Could I get some clarity on the proposed text/language regarding the third option as highlighted in yellow below please. * A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution. 1) If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in withdrawing of an application. Should it not result in a termination or dismissal of an application? "Withdrawing" implies that the applicant has a choice, or is that what was intended by author of this text and/or WG? 2) Is the term "agreement" in part (a) meant to be the same thing as the term "contract" in part (b)? Can we be specific about what agreement or contract these are meant to be? Thanks, Justine Chew ----- On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 07:58, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Probably “in addition”. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 9:22 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear Anne, apologies, the email below was sitting unsent. Below is confirmation that your suggestion was integrated, but also a questions/suggestion for your and the WG’s consideration. Your suggestion has been added to the working draft, although I wonder if this is more applicable to the section on change requests, where the topic of string changes is talked about more fully? Specifically, it might make sense to add to this block of text in section 1.4.d instead (or in addition?): Implementation Guidance: Some examples to consider in allowing for a new string to be selected include prepending/appending a new element to the original string or selecting a string that is closely related to the class/sector of the original string. ICANN org must perform a re-evaluation of the new applied-for string in all string related evaluation elements (e.g., DNS Stability, String Contention, etc.) and the application for the new string would be subject to string related objections (e.g., String Confusion Objections, Legal Rights Objections, etc.). The applicant may be responsible for additional, material costs incurred by ICANN due to re-evaluation and the application could be subject to delay. Best, Steve From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Steve. As mentioned on yesterday’s call, I have comments and language for the last bullet point under 1.2 (d). After considering this language more carefully, please see the following change in red: * A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [lrrc.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY...> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 2:42 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda review/SOIs 2. Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued 3. Planning for ICANN63 4. AOB For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft. For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings [63.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__63.schedule.icann.org_m...>). Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>). Best, Steve 2 Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icanng...> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_&d=DwM...> ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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.
