Dear all,

I need to flag an issue in relation to 2.2.3 with respect to the language shown below.  Regarding the third bullet point, I think we need to clarify in the last phrase that the determination by the Board regarding preferential status should be based on the prior applicant’s agreement to the new policies/procedures.

 

●     If all applications for a given string have a status of “Not Approved”, an application for the TLD string will only be allowed if:

○        All appeals and/or accountability mechanisms have proceeded through final disposition and no applications for the string have succeeded in such appeals and/or accountability mechanisms; or

○        All applicable time limitations (statute of limitations) have expired such that all applicants for a particular string would not be in a position to file an appeal or accountability mechanism with respect to the string; and

○        The ICANN Board has not approved new policies or procedures that would allow one or more of the applicants from the prior round to cure the reasons for which it was placed in the “Not Approved” category, but has approved new policies or procedures that would allow an applicant to apply for the string in any subsequent round. In the event that there are new policies or procedures put into place which would allow applications for strings which were “Not Approved” in a prior round, the ICANN Board must make a determination as to whether the applicants in the prior round have any preferential rights for those strings if  such prior applicants commit to adopt such new policies or procedures at the time such policies or procedures are put into place.

Anne

 

 

Dear Working Group members,

 

As a reminder, the deadline to flag errors in the revisions to Packages 1-5 is this Thursday, 9 July. Please see details below.

 

Kind regards,

Emily

 

Dear Working Group members, 

 

The Draft Final Report sections in packages 1-5 are now revised to reflect discussions on the “Can’t Live With” input received. Please see the revised text made in the working production document here. If you find errors in the edits, for example a revision that you believe does not accurately reflect the outcome of discussions about a “Can’t Live With” item, please raise these on the mailing list no later than Thursday 9 July. If you find typos, you can send those directly to staff.

 

At this stage, please do not raise new issues, introduce new “Can’t Live With” items, or re-open deliberations on items in packages 1-5. The purpose of this review is to “sanity check” revisions resulting from your consideration of “Can’t Live With” input.

 

A high-level summary of the “Can’t Live With” input received is available here. And a detailed log with the outcomes from the WG’s consideration of that input is available here.

 

As you review, you will also notice some redline text in part d of each of the report sections. Staff has been fleshing out the descriptions of dependencies between the sections in order to make the report more readable for an external audience. We do not expect that you will find anything surprising in this text, but we wanted to make note of it nonetheless. 

 

Kind regards,

Emily

 

Emily Barabas

Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

www.icann.org