Yes – Jamie – that would be my understanding. The question posed relates to the fact that the later paragraph says that RVCs developed in response to a “formal objection” invoke an application change request and require public comment.  I hope we have not inadvertently created an exception to this requirement in relation to RVCs adopted in response to an “informal” objection.

Anne

 

 

Hey Anne

 

My interpretation of “formal objection” would be those that are paid for via a dispute resolution provider, not to be confused with any other objection expressed in public comment or other format, including the ICANN correspondence page.

 

Jamie

 

 

On Package 6, please see below:

 

1. re 2.6.1 re “Application Queuing”, the language shown below should be modified because the previous section is drafted as “more than 125” and the section below is drafted as “less than 125”.  Language should be revised does not cover what happens if you get exactly 125 IDN applications:

 

• If there are (delete “less than”) 125 or fewer applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be assigned priority numbersprocessed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application.

 

2. Section 2.8.1 – Objections

I don’t understand why we would remove affirmations of Recommendation 2 and Recommendation 3 from this section.  The fact that these Affirmations are affirmed elsewhere in the report does not change their relevance in relation to the subject of Objections.  Please clarify whether these Affirmations are “in” or “out.”  They don’t appear to be deleted but there are comments on the side saying they should be.

 

Recommendation xx (rationale 3) Throughout this rationale, the word, “formal” has been inserted in front of the word, “objection”.  What is the meaning/need for the insertion of “formal” before “objection”?  Is there a thought that there are “informal” objection processes?  This language also appears in Rationale 6 and there are NUMEROUS insertions of this reference in the Section on Deliberations.  Is there some intended effect here with respect to Subsection d. which specifies that a change in Registry Voluntary Commitments that is made in response to a “formal objection” invokes an application change process?  Is the idea that if there are RVCs that are agreed OUTSIDE the “formal objection” process (i.e. via an “informal” objection), those RVCs are somehow NOT subject to an application change process and related public comment?   I thought we had established that all new RVCs need to be subject to an application change process and public comment.

 

3. Section 2.9.1 Community Applications – Subsection c. “New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable.”

Thanks for deleting the reference to the conclusion that the IRT should be the body that determines any needed changes to the CPE Guidelines.  However, what was discussed when the “can’t live with” comments were reviewed is that there is a need to specify that the WG is seeking public comment on the CPE Guidelines.  We should be specifying at this point in the text that we are seeking that comment and we should provide the link at this same point in the text so that we call attention to the request for public comment on the CPE Guidelines (but not the scoring.)

 

Thank you,

Anne

 

 

Dear all,

 

The following are now available for your review in the production document. The deadline for comments is Wednesday 15 July at 23:59 UTC.

1. Package 7 sections of the Report are now ready for “Can’t Live With” review (beginning on page 148):
   • Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format.
   • Package 7 includes two report sections:
     • 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed on 11 June) - For this section, please limit “Can’t Live With” comments to the new text in the section, which is displayed in black. The text in grey has already gone through “Can’t Live With” review as part of an earlier package.
     • 2.3.2 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) / Public Interest Commitments (PICs) (last discussed on 18 June)
   • Comments will be tracked here.

 

2. Package 6 revisions of the report, now ready for a final check (beginning on page 118):
   • Please limit feedback to 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 send this type of feedback to the mailing list. Typo corrections can be sent directly to staff.
   • For package 6 sections, please do not raise new issues, introduce new “Can’t Live With” items, or re-open deliberations. 
   • 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.

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

 

 

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.