Thanks Jeff

 

As I have said in the past I am completely fine with not accepting support or opposition for an application after the public comment period published in the AGB. Consistency and predictability is key. I do not believe it was the practice of Community applicants to submit their application with the hope of gaining community support just prior to CPE commencing. It was however the practice that the necessary community support letters were submitted with the original applications.

 

What the AGB is clear on is that there are 2 periods for input outside of any “comment period” required for RVCs and application changes. As I’ve previously stated, there is the “public comment period” and the “formal Objections.” I believe you previously confirmed this when you stated that we are not trying to introduce any additional input periods – which would be some kind of new comment period prior to CPE starting.

 

I do not support keeping CPE separate from this discussion. I have never heard a valid reason to do so, other than to provide a third attempt to someone trying to derail a community applicant during CPE scoring. I think Community applicants should have the same predictability on opposition to their application that Standard applications currently have – i.e. it all needs to come in during the “public comment period” or “formal Objections.” To suggest Community applicants should be subject to further scrutiny is not based in any legitimate rational, and it was a bad judgement call made by ICANN in the 2012 round.

 

Jamie

 

From: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>
Date: Monday, August 10, 2020 at 4:20 PM
To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review

 

  1. In the report, in Section 28, I see the following language in the New Ideas Section, but it did not achieve group agreement at the time:

 

“The Working Group discussed whether the public comment period for Community Priority Evaluation applications should be longer than the public comment period for standard applications, as was the case in the 2012 round, or if the two periods should be equal in length. The Working Group did not reach any agreement to change the 2012 practice, and therefore has not made any recommendations in this regard.”

 

Jamie – I think for CPE, we need to think of that as separate and apart from all of the other discussions of formal and informal objections.  This would be good to submit in a public comment on because the Applicant Guidebook does not provide any time lines for “letters of opposition.”  It also does not set a deadline on letters of support either.  In fact, with respect to CPE, the AGB states:

 

“Before the community priority evaluation begins, the applicants who have elected to participate may be asked to provide additional information relevant to the community priority evaluation. “  Section 4.2.1 at p. 4-8.

 

I think both those in support as well as those opposing took advantage of the extra time period.  Bottom Line is that if we set a cutoff date for letters of opposition, should we set one up for letters of support?

  1. We should also not confuse the normal public comment period with comment periods that are in response to application changes.  The reason RVCs will trigger a new comment period is because it represents a change to the original application.  And those changes should be subject to review.  If an applicant does not make any changes to their application, there would not be a need for a new public comment period on that application.

 

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman

Founder & CEO

JJN Solutions, LLC

p: +1.202.549.5079

E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com

http://jjnsolutions.com

 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jamie Baxter
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 3:30 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review

 

Thanks Anne.

 

The 2012 AGB provided for 2 application input opportunities, not including the GAC – “public comment” & “formal Objections.” That is it.

 

Comment periods related to RVC and application changes are separate from these, but related in that they happen because of changes made to address concerns expressed during “public comment” and “formal Objections.” This means that we are telling everyone that if you have an issue with an application you must submit it during either the “public comment period” or the “formal Objections,” providing predictability to applicants on when they might need to react and respond with RVC or an application change.

 

By not restricting “letters of opposition” to the “public comment period” we are essentially introducing a new application input period not described in the AGB – one that has no timeline and no rules around how it should work. I believe I heard Jeff say on that prior call that we are not trying to create this third new period for input, which I fully support not creating.

 

ICANN staff arbitrarily created the “third input period,” simply because a “letter of opposition” was submitted months after formal Objections were completed in the 2012 round. It seems they didn’t know what to do with that input and instead of saying “sorry, it’s too late to submit public comment that could impact CPE scoring,” they decided to allow it to be submitted, against the timelines and rules provided in the AGB. I believe we need to correct that in subsequent rounds and Jeff suggested that the language in this report supports that. I don’t believe the language does, and worse, I think it is in conflict with his statement that “letters of opposition” should be considered “public comment” and follow the rules of the “public comment period.”

 

I am all for supporting required comment periods around RVCs, but I am just suggesting that those periods where RVCs or application changes may occur should be predictable and centered around the “public comment period” and “formal Objections.” There should not be unlimited times during the application process for outsiders to insert pressure on an applicant that is not described in the AGB.

 

Jamie

 

 

From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>
Date: Monday, August 10, 2020 at 2:25 PM
To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review

 

Thank you Jamie.  I appreciate your concern.  I don’t know personally what the deadline is for filing letters of opposition to a community application.  I assume it is the public comment period?

 

I guess I would just repeat that as long as it is clear that any either public or private resolution of issues that results in the adoption of an RVC not contained in the original application absolutely requires public comment, then I am okay with the appropriate language/implementation.  My example is:  I write to you after your application is published and say, “unless you adopt X RVC, I will file an Objection or letter of Opposition to your application.”

 

I think Kathie strongly objects to private resolution of issues via RVCs but I am not certain where she stands on this at this point.

Anne

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jamie Baxter
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 10:54 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review

 

[EXTERNAL]

Thanks Steve

 

I would like to draw attention to Topic 28: Role of Application Comment (page 123, c.)

 

On a call about RVC/PICs within the past few weeks I raised the concern about the term “informal opposition” and I asked quite clearly if it was considered “public comment” since it was certainly not “formal Objection.” The answer to that question was a resounding YES, specifically sighting that the group was not attempting to create a third type of input process/period beyond “public comment” and “formal Objections,” both of which have very specific rules and timelines linked to them.

 

When I raised further concern about the need to limit “public comment” (including informal opposition) to the AGB designated “public comment period”, Jeff assured me that language had been adjusted elsewhere in the report to address it (presumably this section). None of the language in Topic 28 does however. Justine Chew also raised concern in the chat (possibly even Paul too), and I even requested to be pointed to that language since I had not seen it yet, but I never received a follow-up.

 

The reason for this distinction is that in the 2012 round, ICANN permitted “informal opposition” to be submitted days before CPE started for Community applicants. This was years after the AGB advertised “public comment period” had ended, and months after “formal Objections” were completed. That “informal opposition” took direct aim at scoring in CPE (criteria #4).

 

If “informal opposition” is officially considered “public comment,” and we are not creating a third layer of public input in addition to “public comment” and “formal Objections,” then why does the report suggest there is not group agreement on changing the 2012 practice to prevent last minute “informal opposition” against Community applicants that target CPE scoring? These two agreements/non-agreements are in direct conflict with each other.

 

Either we require all “informal opposition” to be submitted during the official “public comment period” published in the AGB (as Jeff affirmed on the call), or we are giving ICANN the ability to toss out all applicant predictability and arbitrarily introduce new informal input periods not described in the AGB.

 

In the bigger picture, and bringing it back to RVC/PICs, if ICANN allows last minute “informal opposition” it could create yet another delay for a Community applicant required to submit RVC/PICs or change their application to protect CPE points, when it could have been handled during the official “public comment period” already described in the AGB. Without addressing this issue, I feel confident that last minute “informal opposition” will once again be used as a gaming tactic in subsequent rounds to target and delay Community applicants during the homestretch.

 

Happy to answer any questions for those who are not as familiar with how this all unfolded in the 2012 round.

 

Cheers

Jamie

 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>
Date: Friday, August 7, 2020 at 11:36 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review

 

Dear WG Members,

 

As discussed and agreed on the 6 August WG call, we have compiled a consolidated list of materials for you all to review in advance of seeking to finalize the draft Final Report for public comment, as early as 13 August 2020.

 

 

 

 

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

 

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 

 


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.