Thanks Jonathan. I don’t disagree with Jeff or you that there could be a distinction to be made. The issue I raise is a very simple one: WHO SHOULD MAKE THE CALL AS TO WHETHER AN ISSUE GOES BACK TO GNSO OR NOT? So we provided for that in Policy and Implementation WG by saying IRT could always raise with GNSO if needed. My issue with the draft Framework is that I don’t think ICANN staff should make the call because that is what got us into hot water with the Strawman Solution and numerous other issues in 2012. If IRT is not still assembled in relation to policy, there should be a way to have some input on an issue so that staff is not deciding it. This was the whole point of the letter that Jeff Neuman himself drafted to the ICANN Board back in 2012. It strikes me that in the next “round”, there should be a standing IRT. That would be the best solution. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D31504.8B79BCA0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 3:39 AM To: 'Jeff Neuman'; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; avri@apc.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg] Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 03:00 UTC I haven’t seen any responses. My personal view is that these are some thoughtful and informed responses by Jeff. A useful reminder of some of the key bumps in the road to rolling out the 2012 programme as well as references to both the underlying policy issues and the subsequent implementation issues. I think the analysis presented and the distinction between programme and policy implementation is a useful framework to be able to refer to for this group as we consider the next round issues and the questions raised by Anne. Jonathan From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 6:25 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'avri@apc.org' <avri@apc.org<mailto:avri@apc.org>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg] Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 03:00 UTC POSTED IN MY PERSONAL CAPACITY AND NOT AS CO-CHAIR; THIS DOES NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF MY EMPLOYER OR ANY OF THE CONSITUENCIES THAT I MAY BE A PART OF. Anne, These are really good points, but taking off my chair hat, I do not believe all issues that arise (or have arisen in the 2012 round) were as a result of the implementation (or lack thereof) of the GNSO policies. Nor will each issue that will arise in the future be a result of implementation issues of the GNSO. We will have to walk through carefully the line of demarcation, but I believe for example, there were a number of issues that were not issues of GNSO Policy Implementation, but rather were issues involving operational implementation of the program. These are issues where the GNSO is not the body with the expertise (in my view) to resolve, but even if they were, the impact of the issues were felt more on the applicants themselves than on the Internet community as a whole. Example 1: The TAS Application Security Breach: This was an operational implementation flaw which was not impacted by the policy. The primary impact was felt by the new gTLD applicants and not the community as a whole. Resolution of this matter was decided solely by the ICANN staff without any input from the applicants or the GNSO. Reconvening a GNSO IRT is not an efficient way of resolving this issue and deciding the path forward. Sure input could be solicited, but a panel of experts would have provided in my personal view better advice to the ICANN Org on what to do. Example 2: Digital Archery Fail: Sure we will be talking about how to resolve this issue for subsequent application windows, so this will not come up again. But the primary impact was felt by the applicants themselves and not the community. Thus, a GNSO Implementation IRT, in my view, would not necessarily be the appropriate way to handle. The new system unilaterally selected by ICANN cost each applicant an extra $100 per application which was unanticipated. Example 3: Changes to the ICANN Registry Agreement midstream. Perhaps here would be an appropriate use of a GNSO Implementation team. Others would argue, however, that the changes that were proposed (namely, giving ICANN additional opportunities to unilaterally amend the agreement, disproportionately impacted the Applicants more than the community). Example 4: Changes to the Pre-delegation Testing criteria – Again, this was an operational implementation of the policy requiring adequate pre-delegation testing. It had a disproportionate effect on the applicants and did not arise due to an issue with the implementation of the GNSO Policy. I could go on and on. The overall point is that in my personal view, there are issues with the implementation of the GNSO policies, and there are other issues that I call issues with the implementation of the “GNSO Program.” Perhaps there are better ways to describe the issue to avoid the confusing terminology, but at the end of the day, setting up a GNSO Implementation Team for these issues, even with the new processes put in place, would not be the best may, in my personal way, to resolve. The issues that I do believe the GNSO should be consulted on are where issues arise out of the specific implementation of the policy. For the 2012 round, I would include the following issues as ones where the GNSO IRT could have (or should have been consulted) 1. The decision on which Rights Protection Mechanisms should be employed. This was not an issue that went through the GNSO in the 2012 round (though the GNSO provided comments). This would also include the decision of whether to have a centralized vs. decentralized clearinghouse model. If you recall, ICANN staff initially proposed a decentralized model and a number of us in the community had to convince ICANN that such a mechanism would be fundamentally flawed. * PLEASE NOTE, HOWEVER, THAT THE DECISION TO USE “SMD FILES” VS. OTHER TYPES OF ENCRYPTION, I BELIEVE WOULD FALL INTO THE CATEGORY OF OPERATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION (NOT POLICY). Thus convening a GNSO committee for that decision would not have been practical. 1. The decision to protect IGO/INGO Names. That went counter to the GNSO Recommendations and therefore should have gone through the GNSO. 1. Protection of Geographic Names: Similar to IGO/INGO names, this was not consistent with the GNSO Policy and therefore, the GNSO should have been involved. 1. How the ICANN Board handled the Closed Generic issue – That should have gone back to the GNSO according to the Policy and Implementation group. 1. How the ICANN Board handled plurals vs. singular – That was a policy implementation issue, because it was ICANN staff’s interpretation of the GNSO Policy on not having confusingly similar strings. So Anne, I do believe there is a line between Policy Implementation and Program Implementation. And in either case, there should be predictable mechanisms to deal with those issues as they arise. Not all of them should go to the GNSO, but similarly, not all of them should be decided by ICANN staff alone. Perhaps a standing panel of “experts” to advise ICANN staff is one way forward? 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<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com] Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 6:45 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; 'avri@apc.org' <avri@apc.org<mailto:avri@apc.org>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg] Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 03:00 UTC Jeff and Avri, The question I had was about where the REVISIONS to the Implementation Framework came from. In other words, who authored them and what changes do the new provisions make to the existing Framework that resulted from the community-wide multi-stakeholder collaboration that Alan described? That is the procedural question. Separately, I think that if we now develop a category called “operational implementation”, we may be creating yet another dichotomy that will cause “road bumps” in the next round. Most of the issues that the Policy and Implementation Working Group considered as “case studies” could also have been characterized as either “policy implementation” or “operational implementation”. One big point of consensus in the Policy and Implementation WG was that the definition should not be controlling. What was controlling was the notion that the matter “in controversy” (or if you will the “operational implementation question” ) needed to go back to the GNSO for ITS determination as to whether the issue involved policy or not. (To use the new terminology mentioned on the call today, a GNSO determination as to whether the issue involves “policy implementation” or “operational implementation”.) It may be more useful to talk about WHEN a problem arises rather than what type of problem it is. For example, I believe that under the existing Framework, while IRT (Implementation Review Team) is still convened, IRT is supposed to figure out whether the issue needs to be raised with GNSO or not. If we are trying to create a mechanism that will operate once IRT is disbanded, that is another story - who makes the call? (Someone asked a question in the doc about the possible need for a Standing IRT.) On the merits: At issue here is “who decides whether an issue arising during the implementation phase is sufficiently controversial as to require GNSO advice?” My point is that we should not revert to a system where ICANN staff is making the determination itself as to whether GNSO needs to consider the issue. That was the whole reason behind the Policy and Implementation Working Group work. Issues like “digital archery”, “name collision”, and changes in the terms of Registry Agreement can easily fall into the bucket of needing to be considered by the GNSO for either “Input”, “Guidance”, “Expedited PDP”, or “PDP”. Labeling an issue as “operational implementation” doesn’t change that. This is because, as we have learned with the history of the new gTLD program, if you are for the solution that ICANN.org develops to the issue that arises during implementation, then it is “operational implementation”. On the other hand, if you are against the solution, it’s “policy implementation”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D31504.8B453F20] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michelle DeSmyter Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 2:34 PM To: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg] Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 03:00 UTC Dear all, The following call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 at 03:00 UTC. 20:00 PDT, 23:00 EDT, 04:00 London, 05:00 CEST for other places see: http://tinyurl.com/y94xsmxx ADOBE CONNECT Room : https://participate.icann.org/newgtldswg If you require a dial-out, please email me with your preferred contact number at gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ____________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: NEW GTLD Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL SAO PAULO: 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 EGYPT 0800000-9029 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 351-2-10054705 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 VIETNAM 120-11751 ________________________________ 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.
