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