Dear all:

Regarding accurate reflection of the discussions which occurred in Work Track 4  - see Section 1.7 of the draft Initial Report - items raised several times are summarized in my e-mail of February 28, 2018 below.   These items were raised in the Work Track 4 call on November 30, 2017  as documented in the attached email of January 17, 2018.   (The attached email notes the points in the mp3 recording from November 30 at which these items were discussed.)   Thus, the points were raised, at a minimum, on November 30, 2017, January 17, 2018, and February 28, 2018.

 

Please note that the items set out below are specifically identified as issues/questions that should be put out for public comment and that should be highlighted in the Initial Report.   Accordingly, could staff please make certain that Section 1.7 of the draft accurately reflects the items below? That should save a lot of time on the May 29 call.

 

Thank you,

Anne

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks Rubens.  Regarding AOB, I had previously raised issues in relation to topics discussed in Call #21 and was assured that these would be addressed in upcoming calls.   A copy of my e-mail of January 17 concerning these issues is again attached.

 

In the plenary meeting on Monday, I requested that these issues be added to the agenda for the March 1 call.  My concern is that the issues will be skipped.  It seems that a draft Initial Report is imminent.   Thus, these issues should be raised for further discussion in AOB so that the work of the group on those issues can be accurately reflected in the draft Initial Report before it goes out for public comment.

 

A very short summary of the noted issues appears in bullet point form below:

 

1.       Aggregated technical evaluation should not affect the order of processing applications.  Kurt Pritz objected to the “as much as feasible” language in the slides and stated “Additional technical evaluation should not retard or slow down applications….they should retain their place in queue and should not be penalized in any way from a timing standpoint.”  This issue should be raised for public comment.

 

2.       Issue Still to be Defined – whether a new gTLD applicant should or should not be required to disclose planned new services at the time of application.  This is an important question for public comment in that the current policy requires such disclosure where as several in the group commented that they disfavor public disclosure of new services and favor the RSEP process.   This also relates to Question 18 of the application.  Three straw models were proposed and discussed.  Friendly amendments were offered, but no final recommended model was adopted by the group.  Will all three models go out for public comment?

 

3.       Name Collisions – Items which should be put out for public comment are: 

 

(a) Should ICANN be directly responsible for controlled interruption rather than the registries? 

(b) What should be the period of controlled interruption?

(c) Re the proposal for “do not apply” and “exercise care” lists, as well as low and medium risk categories, we need public comment on how to establish standards for these lists so that our input can be provided to the SSAC, and

(d) we need public comment on whether or not applicants should be able to propose name collision mitigation plans on an individual string-by-string basis and what mechanism, if any, could be put in place to approve such an individualized  mitigation plan.  (Again, this will be important for providing input to the SSAC.)

 

The above issues should be highlighted in the Initial Report.

 

Thank you,

Anne