Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 December 15:00 UTC
Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the WG meeting on 14 December at 15:00 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-14+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie == Notes and Action Items: Action Items: Topic 8: Conflicts of Interest<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRy...> Row 13 – WIPO and Row 14 – Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) and PETILLION Law Firm re: Refer to best practice resources. ACTION ITEM: Cite the source as a reference in the rationale. c. Topic 10: Applicant Freedom of Expression<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bxEnuFrtI7996NnGPMR00JEwM6KK5m8Y_AGp...> Row 10 -- Thomas Barrett (Individual); Row 11 -- Internet Governance Project; Row 13 – ICANN org re: Suggests providing greater specificity ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote in the rationale to this ongoing work in WS2 and the Framework of Interpretation. d. Topic 33: Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pk3SadfiropKdD387FrgELdulfZuTbUCivf1...> Row 14 – ALAC ACTION ITEM: Ensure that this outreach is not excluded from Topic 13: Communications recommendations. AOB: PICs/RVCs: ACTION ITEM: Leadership will provide to the WG to review redlines to the text of the PICs/RVCs section based on the WG discussion during the meeting on 14 December. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: None provided. 2. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the links to the Public Comment Review Tool on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Published+Draft+reports and review the following topics and comments: a. Update from Small Team – Auctions – References: See the Public Comment Review Tool at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmZRLAsW6wlTyQ8LA3KhOQzU1UABL9zCPWw3...; See the draft Final Report starting on page 163, with Contention Resolution Transparency Requirements starting on page 166 at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-final-report-new-gtld-subsequent-20au... -- There are some firmly held beliefs either to allow without guardrails other than in the recommendations; others that think the recommendations go far enough. -- At the end of the day although there were fruitful conversations the recommendations in the draft Final Report will stay as they are. -- At the meeting on 11 December we asked if the disclosure requirements were enough to provide protections. -- See what happens in the next round to see if the harmful behavior happens – gather from disclosure data. -- There are strong beliefs on all sides and without data on actual harms it will be hard to get agreement on any changes. -- Question: The Small Team didn’t address the comments that were submitted in the draft Final Report – will the WG address them? Answer: The Small Team did look at a lot of the comments, although we got stuck on the Board’s comments. -- Did look at the IPC comments on exempting .brands from the sealed bid, but didn’t get any traction. -- WG will address the responses to the Board separately after the Final Report is delivered. b. Topic 8: Conflicts of Interest<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRy...> Row 10 -- InfoNetworks LLC re: COI provisions should not prevent experts from serving as CPE panelists. Leadership Comments: Question: Would our recommendations prevent experts from serving? Leadership didn’t think that the recommendation would prevent this. Row 12 -- dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG and Hamburg Top-Level-Domain GmbH re: Geo names panel should be transparent. Leadership Comments: Was this not the case in 2012 round? Not aware that it wasn’t transparent in the previous round. Noted. Row 13 – WIPO and Row 14 – Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) and PETILLION Law Firm re: Refer to best practice resources. Leadership Comments: Perhaps citing this source? This has been presented as a possible source, for example. ACTION ITEM: Cite the source as a reference in the rationale. Row 15 – ICANN org Leadership Comments: Define Conflict of Interest? Not sure it is for the WG to provide Examples. c. Topic 10: Applicant Freedom of Expression<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bxEnuFrtI7996NnGPMR00JEwM6KK5m8Y_AGp...> Row 10 -- Thomas Barrett (Individual); Row 11 -- Internet Governance Project; Row 13 – ICANN org re: Suggests providing greater specificity Leadership Comments: Prefer not to provide examples; the framework of interpretation was developed and ICANN has had an external review. Decided in WS2. Propose a footnote or reference to the more recent reports regarding Human Rights impacts studies and assessment. WG should be cognizant of the ongoing work on the Human Right aspects of WS2 and Freedom of Expression. Discussion: -- Agree with adding a reference to Workstream 2 work on Human Rights Core Value Framework and implementation. -- It may behoove applicants to consider that Framework. -- What the WG references should be the full community work, not ancillary work. -- The Framework is already active since the bylaws activated it once the Framework was approved. -- We need to ensure there is no 'confusion' between the finalised FOI-HR work and the recommendation *for* Impact assessments being implemented and the continuing discussions from interested parties with specific expertise in Human Rights advocacy more generally... -- The IRT should link to the Human Rights Framework in the AGB - applicants need to know about this. -- If an application is Objected to on Human Rights grounds (moral objection) and we haven't referenced the Human Rights Framework in the AGB, it's going to be an issue. So this probably needs more than just a footnote. ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote in the rationale to this ongoing work in WS2 and the cite the Framework of Interpretation. d. Topic 33: Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pk3SadfiropKdD387FrgELdulfZuTbUCivf1...> Row 9 – ARTICLE 19 Leadership Comments: Noted; maybe add to the rationale that it's tough to bring a PICDRP because it's hard to show how they have been harmed. Row 12 – BC Leadership Comments: Noted. ICANN and Registries did make some clarifications to the process recently. And in the 2nd PICDRP case we know that there is not agreement on whether the process was followed. Row 13 – ICANN Board Leadership Comments: More details needed; maybe add to the rationale that it's tough to bring a PICDRP because it's hard to show how they have been harmed. We do have a recommendation that this should be clear. Also, the Board and Org noted recent improvements that should have covered this issue. Row 14 – ALAC Leadership Comments: Do we mention dispute proceedings in the outreach/ communication campaign efforts? We think it covers outreach on all aspects of the new gTLD program. ACTION ITEM: Ensure that this outreach is not excluded from Topic 13: Communications recommendations. 3. AOB: a. RVCs/PICs -- Comments from Alan. Needs to be a recommendation that contracts have to be enforceable. If ICANN be involved in the choice of a dispute processor then an registry could pick whoever they want to judge their own case. We need to ensure that the entity judging the case is impartial. -- What prevents a registry from having that in PICs? PICs are part of the Registry contract. -- WG should provide rules for dispute providers. -- Didn’t think we needed to make a recommendation that contracts must be enforceable because they are by nature enforceable because they are contracts. -- PICs are part of registry contracts. -- The choice of the dispute processor is made by both parties, not just by the registry, and it would be part of the contract. -- Maybe say “it is our understanding” when we are not simply giving an opinion, but stating what was said elsewhere; say “I believe” where stating an opinion. -- Maybe say “for the purpose of clarification we believe that PICs and RVCs are part of the contract and fully enforceable.” -- Add to the rationale that PICs and RVCs can be enforced. -- We should make a recommendation that it should be in the registry contract that the choice of the dispute processor must be agreed to by the two parties. -- Agree with Alan that voluntary PICs and RVCs should require third party dispute resolution process. Mandatory PICs should stay internal. ACTION ITEM: Leadership will provide to the WG to review redlines to the text of the PICs/RVCs section based on the WG discussion during the meeting on 14 December. b. Consensus Call: Minority Statements -- Are accepted as is; not altered by the WG or leadership. -- Minority Statements will not be included in a Consensus Call -- they will come after. -- An individual can file a Minority Statement; but must be a member. -- We don’t silence the views of any member. -- Consensus Call: state in support of or not in support of the recommendations. -- Leadership will make the determination according to section 3.6 of the WG Guidelines. -- If individuals have stated their non-support for similar reasons, then those could be a minority view – but this is not the same as a Minority Statement in response to the consensus designations.
Dear all I’m a bit confused about some interpretations coming up lately in this WG regarding the role of members of the WG (zoom recording at 1h:15m more or less). I feel it is understood that WG members participate therein according to what is stated in their statement of interests and according to how they registered in the WG (e.g. as individuals, members or reps of certain constituencies, of SO/ACs, etc.). At least for Government reps we normally act per default in representation of our Administrations. And at times we may be representing or conveying opinions on behalf of the entire GAC (normally we will say so explicitly). As Government reps it is normal and expectable, and has been said many times over the years, that we are required to coordinate amongst different departments and agencies, especially when considering and/or reacting to vast pieces of draft policy recommendations that span multiple areas of public policy. I guess that the same may be true for other members of the group from different constituencies and SOACs. I hope that this helps in getting the “assumptions” right… Kind regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Julie Hedlund Gesendet: Montag, 14. Dezember 2020 17:49 An: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 December 15:00 UTC Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the WG meeting on 14 December at 15:00 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-14+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie == Notes and Action Items: Action Items: Topic 8: Conflicts of Interest<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRy...> Row 13 – WIPO and Row 14 – Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) and PETILLION Law Firm re: Refer to best practice resources. ACTION ITEM: Cite the source as a reference in the rationale. c. Topic 10: Applicant Freedom of Expression<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bxEnuFrtI7996NnGPMR00JEwM6KK5m8Y_AGp...> Row 10 -- Thomas Barrett (Individual); Row 11 -- Internet Governance Project; Row 13 – ICANN org re: Suggests providing greater specificity ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote in the rationale to this ongoing work in WS2 and the Framework of Interpretation. d. Topic 33: Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pk3SadfiropKdD387FrgELdulfZuTbUCivf1...> Row 14 – ALAC ACTION ITEM: Ensure that this outreach is not excluded from Topic 13: Communications recommendations. AOB: PICs/RVCs: ACTION ITEM: Leadership will provide to the WG to review redlines to the text of the PICs/RVCs section based on the WG discussion during the meeting on 14 December. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: None provided. 2. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the links to the Public Comment Review Tool on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Published+Draft+reports and review the following topics and comments: a. Update from Small Team – Auctions – References: See the Public Comment Review Tool at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmZRLAsW6wlTyQ8LA3KhOQzU1UABL9zCPWw3...; See the draft Final Report starting on page 163, with Contention Resolution Transparency Requirements starting on page 166 at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-final-report-new-gtld-subsequent-20au... -- There are some firmly held beliefs either to allow without guardrails other than in the recommendations; others that think the recommendations go far enough. -- At the end of the day although there were fruitful conversations the recommendations in the draft Final Report will stay as they are. -- At the meeting on 11 December we asked if the disclosure requirements were enough to provide protections. -- See what happens in the next round to see if the harmful behavior happens – gather from disclosure data. -- There are strong beliefs on all sides and without data on actual harms it will be hard to get agreement on any changes. -- Question: The Small Team didn’t address the comments that were submitted in the draft Final Report – will the WG address them? Answer: The Small Team did look at a lot of the comments, although we got stuck on the Board’s comments. -- Did look at the IPC comments on exempting .brands from the sealed bid, but didn’t get any traction. -- WG will address the responses to the Board separately after the Final Report is delivered. b. Topic 8: Conflicts of Interest<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRy...> Row 10 -- InfoNetworks LLC re: COI provisions should not prevent experts from serving as CPE panelists. Leadership Comments: Question: Would our recommendations prevent experts from serving? Leadership didn’t think that the recommendation would prevent this. Row 12 -- dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG and Hamburg Top-Level-Domain GmbH re: Geo names panel should be transparent. Leadership Comments: Was this not the case in 2012 round? Not aware that it wasn’t transparent in the previous round. Noted. Row 13 – WIPO and Row 14 – Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) and PETILLION Law Firm re: Refer to best practice resources. Leadership Comments: Perhaps citing this source? This has been presented as a possible source, for example. ACTION ITEM: Cite the source as a reference in the rationale. Row 15 – ICANN org Leadership Comments: Define Conflict of Interest? Not sure it is for the WG to provide Examples. c. Topic 10: Applicant Freedom of Expression<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bxEnuFrtI7996NnGPMR00JEwM6KK5m8Y_AGp...> Row 10 -- Thomas Barrett (Individual); Row 11 -- Internet Governance Project; Row 13 – ICANN org re: Suggests providing greater specificity Leadership Comments: Prefer not to provide examples; the framework of interpretation was developed and ICANN has had an external review. Decided in WS2. Propose a footnote or reference to the more recent reports regarding Human Rights impacts studies and assessment. WG should be cognizant of the ongoing work on the Human Right aspects of WS2 and Freedom of Expression. Discussion: -- Agree with adding a reference to Workstream 2 work on Human Rights Core Value Framework and implementation. -- It may behoove applicants to consider that Framework. -- What the WG references should be the full community work, not ancillary work. -- The Framework is already active since the bylaws activated it once the Framework was approved. -- We need to ensure there is no 'confusion' between the finalised FOI-HR work and the recommendation *for* Impact assessments being implemented and the continuing discussions from interested parties with specific expertise in Human Rights advocacy more generally... -- The IRT should link to the Human Rights Framework in the AGB - applicants need to know about this. -- If an application is Objected to on Human Rights grounds (moral objection) and we haven't referenced the Human Rights Framework in the AGB, it's going to be an issue. So this probably needs more than just a footnote. ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote in the rationale to this ongoing work in WS2 and the cite the Framework of Interpretation. d. Topic 33: Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pk3SadfiropKdD387FrgELdulfZuTbUCivf1...> Row 9 – ARTICLE 19 Leadership Comments: Noted; maybe add to the rationale that it's tough to bring a PICDRP because it's hard to show how they have been harmed. Row 12 – BC Leadership Comments: Noted. ICANN and Registries did make some clarifications to the process recently. And in the 2nd PICDRP case we know that there is not agreement on whether the process was followed. Row 13 – ICANN Board Leadership Comments: More details needed; maybe add to the rationale that it's tough to bring a PICDRP because it's hard to show how they have been harmed. We do have a recommendation that this should be clear. Also, the Board and Org noted recent improvements that should have covered this issue. Row 14 – ALAC Leadership Comments: Do we mention dispute proceedings in the outreach/ communication campaign efforts? We think it covers outreach on all aspects of the new gTLD program. ACTION ITEM: Ensure that this outreach is not excluded from Topic 13: Communications recommendations. 3. AOB: a. RVCs/PICs -- Comments from Alan. Needs to be a recommendation that contracts have to be enforceable. If ICANN be involved in the choice of a dispute processor then an registry could pick whoever they want to judge their own case. We need to ensure that the entity judging the case is impartial. -- What prevents a registry from having that in PICs? PICs are part of the Registry contract. -- WG should provide rules for dispute providers. -- Didn’t think we needed to make a recommendation that contracts must be enforceable because they are by nature enforceable because they are contracts. -- PICs are part of registry contracts. -- The choice of the dispute processor is made by both parties, not just by the registry, and it would be part of the contract. -- Maybe say “it is our understanding” when we are not simply giving an opinion, but stating what was said elsewhere; say “I believe” where stating an opinion. -- Maybe say “for the purpose of clarification we believe that PICs and RVCs are part of the contract and fully enforceable.” -- Add to the rationale that PICs and RVCs can be enforced. -- We should make a recommendation that it should be in the registry contract that the choice of the dispute processor must be agreed to by the two parties. -- Agree with Alan that voluntary PICs and RVCs should require third party dispute resolution process. Mandatory PICs should stay internal. ACTION ITEM: Leadership will provide to the WG to review redlines to the text of the PICs/RVCs section based on the WG discussion during the meeting on 14 December. b. Consensus Call: Minority Statements -- Are accepted as is; not altered by the WG or leadership. -- Minority Statements will not be included in a Consensus Call -- they will come after. -- An individual can file a Minority Statement; but must be a member. -- We don’t silence the views of any member. -- Consensus Call: state in support of or not in support of the recommendations. -- Leadership will make the determination according to section 3.6 of the WG Guidelines. -- If individuals have stated their non-support for similar reasons, then those could be a minority view – but this is not the same as a Minority Statement in response to the consensus designations.
Hi Jorge, just responding to your email regarding the role of members and representation – specifically your comment “I feel it is understood that WG members participate therein according to what is stated in their statement of interests and according to how they registered in the WG (e.g. as individuals, members or reps of certain constituencies, of SO/ACs, etc.)”, for the avoidance of doubt. I can only speak from my own experience, although I believe this is reflective of the GNSO participants as a whole. We participate as individuals (and/or representatives of our employers), and do not represent or speak for the stakeholder group(s) or constituency(ies) we have an affiliation with. When signing up for the WG, we were asked to indicate our affiliation, not to indicate our representative status. I, and I believe many others, did so on the basis that this is useful information in allowing other WG members to understand where we participate in the ICANN community, and therefore to give an insight into our likely perspectives - something which is more fully set-out in the SOI including, potentially, other affiliations we also have either personally or through our employers. None of the members of this WG who have indicated “IPC” as an affiliation have done so intending to indicate that they are a designated representative of, or speaking for, the IPC, and they do not do so. As I said, I believe the same is the case for all the GNSO participants. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude | Valideus E: susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: 15 December 2020 15:18 To: julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 December 15:00 UTC Dear all I’m a bit confused about some interpretations coming up lately in this WG regarding the role of members of the WG (zoom recording at 1h:15m more or less). I feel it is understood that WG members participate therein according to what is stated in their statement of interests and according to how they registered in the WG (e.g. as individuals, members or reps of certain constituencies, of SO/ACs, etc.). At least for Government reps we normally act per default in representation of our Administrations. And at times we may be representing or conveying opinions on behalf of the entire GAC (normally we will say so explicitly). As Government reps it is normal and expectable, and has been said many times over the years, that we are required to coordinate amongst different departments and agencies, especially when considering and/or reacting to vast pieces of draft policy recommendations that span multiple areas of public policy. I guess that the same may be true for other members of the group from different constituencies and SOACs. I hope that this helps in getting the “assumptions” right… Kind regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> Im Auftrag von Julie Hedlund Gesendet: Montag, 14. Dezember 2020 17:49 An: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 December 15:00 UTC Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the WG meeting on 14 December at 15:00 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-14+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie == Notes and Action Items: Action Items: Topic 8: Conflicts of Interest<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRy...> Row 13 – WIPO and Row 14 – Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) and PETILLION Law Firm re: Refer to best practice resources. ACTION ITEM: Cite the source as a reference in the rationale. c. Topic 10: Applicant Freedom of Expression<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bxEnuFrtI7996NnGPMR00JEwM6KK5m8Y_AGp...> Row 10 -- Thomas Barrett (Individual); Row 11 -- Internet Governance Project; Row 13 – ICANN org re: Suggests providing greater specificity ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote in the rationale to this ongoing work in WS2 and the Framework of Interpretation. d. Topic 33: Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pk3SadfiropKdD387FrgELdulfZuTbUCivf1...> Row 14 – ALAC ACTION ITEM: Ensure that this outreach is not excluded from Topic 13: Communications recommendations. AOB: PICs/RVCs: ACTION ITEM: Leadership will provide to the WG to review redlines to the text of the PICs/RVCs section based on the WG discussion during the meeting on 14 December. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: None provided. 2. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the links to the Public Comment Review Tool on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Published+Draft+reports and review the following topics and comments: a. Update from Small Team – Auctions – References: See the Public Comment Review Tool at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmZRLAsW6wlTyQ8LA3KhOQzU1UABL9zCPWw3...; See the draft Final Report starting on page 163, with Contention Resolution Transparency Requirements starting on page 166 at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-final-report-new-gtld-subsequent-20au... -- There are some firmly held beliefs either to allow without guardrails other than in the recommendations; others that think the recommendations go far enough. -- At the end of the day although there were fruitful conversations the recommendations in the draft Final Report will stay as they are. -- At the meeting on 11 December we asked if the disclosure requirements were enough to provide protections. -- See what happens in the next round to see if the harmful behavior happens – gather from disclosure data. -- There are strong beliefs on all sides and without data on actual harms it will be hard to get agreement on any changes. -- Question: The Small Team didn’t address the comments that were submitted in the draft Final Report – will the WG address them? Answer: The Small Team did look at a lot of the comments, although we got stuck on the Board’s comments. -- Did look at the IPC comments on exempting .brands from the sealed bid, but didn’t get any traction. -- WG will address the responses to the Board separately after the Final Report is delivered. b. Topic 8: Conflicts of Interest<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRy...> Row 10 -- InfoNetworks LLC re: COI provisions should not prevent experts from serving as CPE panelists. Leadership Comments: Question: Would our recommendations prevent experts from serving? Leadership didn’t think that the recommendation would prevent this. Row 12 -- dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG and Hamburg Top-Level-Domain GmbH re: Geo names panel should be transparent. Leadership Comments: Was this not the case in 2012 round? Not aware that it wasn’t transparent in the previous round. Noted. Row 13 – WIPO and Row 14 – Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) and PETILLION Law Firm re: Refer to best practice resources. Leadership Comments: Perhaps citing this source? This has been presented as a possible source, for example. ACTION ITEM: Cite the source as a reference in the rationale. Row 15 – ICANN org Leadership Comments: Define Conflict of Interest? Not sure it is for the WG to provide Examples. c. Topic 10: Applicant Freedom of Expression<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bxEnuFrtI7996NnGPMR00JEwM6KK5m8Y_AGp...> Row 10 -- Thomas Barrett (Individual); Row 11 -- Internet Governance Project; Row 13 – ICANN org re: Suggests providing greater specificity Leadership Comments: Prefer not to provide examples; the framework of interpretation was developed and ICANN has had an external review. Decided in WS2. Propose a footnote or reference to the more recent reports regarding Human Rights impacts studies and assessment. WG should be cognizant of the ongoing work on the Human Right aspects of WS2 and Freedom of Expression. Discussion: -- Agree with adding a reference to Workstream 2 work on Human Rights Core Value Framework and implementation. -- It may behoove applicants to consider that Framework. -- What the WG references should be the full community work, not ancillary work. -- The Framework is already active since the bylaws activated it once the Framework was approved. -- We need to ensure there is no 'confusion' between the finalised FOI-HR work and the recommendation *for* Impact assessments being implemented and the continuing discussions from interested parties with specific expertise in Human Rights advocacy more generally... -- The IRT should link to the Human Rights Framework in the AGB - applicants need to know about this. -- If an application is Objected to on Human Rights grounds (moral objection) and we haven't referenced the Human Rights Framework in the AGB, it's going to be an issue. So this probably needs more than just a footnote. ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote in the rationale to this ongoing work in WS2 and the cite the Framework of Interpretation. d. Topic 33: Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pk3SadfiropKdD387FrgELdulfZuTbUCivf1...> Row 9 – ARTICLE 19 Leadership Comments: Noted; maybe add to the rationale that it's tough to bring a PICDRP because it's hard to show how they have been harmed. Row 12 – BC Leadership Comments: Noted. ICANN and Registries did make some clarifications to the process recently. And in the 2nd PICDRP case we know that there is not agreement on whether the process was followed. Row 13 – ICANN Board Leadership Comments: More details needed; maybe add to the rationale that it's tough to bring a PICDRP because it's hard to show how they have been harmed. We do have a recommendation that this should be clear. Also, the Board and Org noted recent improvements that should have covered this issue. Row 14 – ALAC Leadership Comments: Do we mention dispute proceedings in the outreach/ communication campaign efforts? We think it covers outreach on all aspects of the new gTLD program. ACTION ITEM: Ensure that this outreach is not excluded from Topic 13: Communications recommendations. 3. AOB: a. RVCs/PICs -- Comments from Alan. Needs to be a recommendation that contracts have to be enforceable. If ICANN be involved in the choice of a dispute processor then an registry could pick whoever they want to judge their own case. We need to ensure that the entity judging the case is impartial. -- What prevents a registry from having that in PICs? PICs are part of the Registry contract. -- WG should provide rules for dispute providers. -- Didn’t think we needed to make a recommendation that contracts must be enforceable because they are by nature enforceable because they are contracts. -- PICs are part of registry contracts. -- The choice of the dispute processor is made by both parties, not just by the registry, and it would be part of the contract. -- Maybe say “it is our understanding” when we are not simply giving an opinion, but stating what was said elsewhere; say “I believe” where stating an opinion. -- Maybe say “for the purpose of clarification we believe that PICs and RVCs are part of the contract and fully enforceable.” -- Add to the rationale that PICs and RVCs can be enforced. -- We should make a recommendation that it should be in the registry contract that the choice of the dispute processor must be agreed to by the two parties. -- Agree with Alan that voluntary PICs and RVCs should require third party dispute resolution process. Mandatory PICs should stay internal. ACTION ITEM: Leadership will provide to the WG to review redlines to the text of the PICs/RVCs section based on the WG discussion during the meeting on 14 December. b. Consensus Call: Minority Statements -- Are accepted as is; not altered by the WG or leadership. -- Minority Statements will not be included in a Consensus Call -- they will come after. -- An individual can file a Minority Statement; but must be a member. -- We don’t silence the views of any member. -- Consensus Call: state in support of or not in support of the recommendations. -- Leadership will make the determination according to section 3.6 of the WG Guidelines. -- If individuals have stated their non-support for similar reasons, then those could be a minority view – but this is not the same as a Minority Statement in response to the consensus designations. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>
Dear Susan Thanks very much for that explanation. I don’t see too much of a contradiction between your experience (which is one possible way of participating, i.e. as “individual” and as “individual representing your employer”) and what I was saying (that as Government reps we normally represent our Administrations, i.e. are representing our employer – which normally are vast and ergo requires consultation processes), and that additional roles are possible (e.g. representing a constituency and even a SO/AC when saying so explicitly…). What confused me was the apparent “assumption” that we act here merely as “individuals”. At least for Government people that is not an assumption that IMO may be generalized… And, as you say, there are even in the GNSO people representing their employers… So, I guess that our “assumptions” should be inclusive of all these different kind of cases and be mindful of different kinds of participation across the community. Kindly Jorge Von: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Dezember 2020 11:24 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Cc: julie.hedlund@icann.org Betreff: RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 December 15:00 UTC Hi Jorge, just responding to your email regarding the role of members and representation – specifically your comment “I feel it is understood that WG members participate therein according to what is stated in their statement of interests and according to how they registered in the WG (e.g. as individuals, members or reps of certain constituencies, of SO/ACs, etc.)”, for the avoidance of doubt. I can only speak from my own experience, although I believe this is reflective of the GNSO participants as a whole. We participate as individuals (and/or representatives of our employers), and do not represent or speak for the stakeholder group(s) or constituency(ies) we have an affiliation with. When signing up for the WG, we were asked to indicate our affiliation, not to indicate our representative status. I, and I believe many others, did so on the basis that this is useful information in allowing other WG members to understand where we participate in the ICANN community, and therefore to give an insight into our likely perspectives - something which is more fully set-out in the SOI including, potentially, other affiliations we also have either personally or through our employers. None of the members of this WG who have indicated “IPC” as an affiliation have done so intending to indicate that they are a designated representative of, or speaking for, the IPC, and they do not do so. As I said, I believe the same is the case for all the GNSO participants. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude | Valideus E: susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: 15 December 2020 15:18 To: julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 December 15:00 UTC Dear all I’m a bit confused about some interpretations coming up lately in this WG regarding the role of members of the WG (zoom recording at 1h:15m more or less). I feel it is understood that WG members participate therein according to what is stated in their statement of interests and according to how they registered in the WG (e.g. as individuals, members or reps of certain constituencies, of SO/ACs, etc.). At least for Government reps we normally act per default in representation of our Administrations. And at times we may be representing or conveying opinions on behalf of the entire GAC (normally we will say so explicitly). As Government reps it is normal and expectable, and has been said many times over the years, that we are required to coordinate amongst different departments and agencies, especially when considering and/or reacting to vast pieces of draft policy recommendations that span multiple areas of public policy. I guess that the same may be true for other members of the group from different constituencies and SOACs. I hope that this helps in getting the “assumptions” right… Kind regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> Im Auftrag von Julie Hedlund Gesendet: Montag, 14. Dezember 2020 17:49 An: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 December 15:00 UTC Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the WG meeting on 14 December at 15:00 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-14+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie == Notes and Action Items: Action Items: Topic 8: Conflicts of Interest<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRy...> Row 13 – WIPO and Row 14 – Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) and PETILLION Law Firm re: Refer to best practice resources. ACTION ITEM: Cite the source as a reference in the rationale. c. Topic 10: Applicant Freedom of Expression<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bxEnuFrtI7996NnGPMR00JEwM6KK5m8Y_AGp...> Row 10 -- Thomas Barrett (Individual); Row 11 -- Internet Governance Project; Row 13 – ICANN org re: Suggests providing greater specificity ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote in the rationale to this ongoing work in WS2 and the Framework of Interpretation. d. Topic 33: Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pk3SadfiropKdD387FrgELdulfZuTbUCivf1...> Row 14 – ALAC ACTION ITEM: Ensure that this outreach is not excluded from Topic 13: Communications recommendations. AOB: PICs/RVCs: ACTION ITEM: Leadership will provide to the WG to review redlines to the text of the PICs/RVCs section based on the WG discussion during the meeting on 14 December. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: None provided. 2. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the links to the Public Comment Review Tool on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Published+Draft+reports and review the following topics and comments: a. Update from Small Team – Auctions – References: See the Public Comment Review Tool at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmZRLAsW6wlTyQ8LA3KhOQzU1UABL9zCPWw3...; See the draft Final Report starting on page 163, with Contention Resolution Transparency Requirements starting on page 166 at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-final-report-new-gtld-subsequent-20au... -- There are some firmly held beliefs either to allow without guardrails other than in the recommendations; others that think the recommendations go far enough. -- At the end of the day although there were fruitful conversations the recommendations in the draft Final Report will stay as they are. -- At the meeting on 11 December we asked if the disclosure requirements were enough to provide protections. -- See what happens in the next round to see if the harmful behavior happens – gather from disclosure data. -- There are strong beliefs on all sides and without data on actual harms it will be hard to get agreement on any changes. -- Question: The Small Team didn’t address the comments that were submitted in the draft Final Report – will the WG address them? Answer: The Small Team did look at a lot of the comments, although we got stuck on the Board’s comments. -- Did look at the IPC comments on exempting .brands from the sealed bid, but didn’t get any traction. -- WG will address the responses to the Board separately after the Final Report is delivered. b. Topic 8: Conflicts of Interest<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRy...> Row 10 -- InfoNetworks LLC re: COI provisions should not prevent experts from serving as CPE panelists. Leadership Comments: Question: Would our recommendations prevent experts from serving? Leadership didn’t think that the recommendation would prevent this. Row 12 -- dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG and Hamburg Top-Level-Domain GmbH re: Geo names panel should be transparent. Leadership Comments: Was this not the case in 2012 round? Not aware that it wasn’t transparent in the previous round. Noted. Row 13 – WIPO and Row 14 – Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) and PETILLION Law Firm re: Refer to best practice resources. Leadership Comments: Perhaps citing this source? This has been presented as a possible source, for example. ACTION ITEM: Cite the source as a reference in the rationale. Row 15 – ICANN org Leadership Comments: Define Conflict of Interest? Not sure it is for the WG to provide Examples. c. Topic 10: Applicant Freedom of Expression<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bxEnuFrtI7996NnGPMR00JEwM6KK5m8Y_AGp...> Row 10 -- Thomas Barrett (Individual); Row 11 -- Internet Governance Project; Row 13 – ICANN org re: Suggests providing greater specificity Leadership Comments: Prefer not to provide examples; the framework of interpretation was developed and ICANN has had an external review. Decided in WS2. Propose a footnote or reference to the more recent reports regarding Human Rights impacts studies and assessment. WG should be cognizant of the ongoing work on the Human Right aspects of WS2 and Freedom of Expression. Discussion: -- Agree with adding a reference to Workstream 2 work on Human Rights Core Value Framework and implementation. -- It may behoove applicants to consider that Framework. -- What the WG references should be the full community work, not ancillary work. -- The Framework is already active since the bylaws activated it once the Framework was approved. -- We need to ensure there is no 'confusion' between the finalised FOI-HR work and the recommendation *for* Impact assessments being implemented and the continuing discussions from interested parties with specific expertise in Human Rights advocacy more generally... -- The IRT should link to the Human Rights Framework in the AGB - applicants need to know about this. -- If an application is Objected to on Human Rights grounds (moral objection) and we haven't referenced the Human Rights Framework in the AGB, it's going to be an issue. So this probably needs more than just a footnote. ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote in the rationale to this ongoing work in WS2 and the cite the Framework of Interpretation. d. Topic 33: Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pk3SadfiropKdD387FrgELdulfZuTbUCivf1...> Row 9 – ARTICLE 19 Leadership Comments: Noted; maybe add to the rationale that it's tough to bring a PICDRP because it's hard to show how they have been harmed. Row 12 – BC Leadership Comments: Noted. ICANN and Registries did make some clarifications to the process recently. And in the 2nd PICDRP case we know that there is not agreement on whether the process was followed. Row 13 – ICANN Board Leadership Comments: More details needed; maybe add to the rationale that it's tough to bring a PICDRP because it's hard to show how they have been harmed. We do have a recommendation that this should be clear. Also, the Board and Org noted recent improvements that should have covered this issue. Row 14 – ALAC Leadership Comments: Do we mention dispute proceedings in the outreach/ communication campaign efforts? We think it covers outreach on all aspects of the new gTLD program. ACTION ITEM: Ensure that this outreach is not excluded from Topic 13: Communications recommendations. 3. AOB: a. RVCs/PICs -- Comments from Alan. Needs to be a recommendation that contracts have to be enforceable. If ICANN be involved in the choice of a dispute processor then an registry could pick whoever they want to judge their own case. We need to ensure that the entity judging the case is impartial. -- What prevents a registry from having that in PICs? PICs are part of the Registry contract. -- WG should provide rules for dispute providers. -- Didn’t think we needed to make a recommendation that contracts must be enforceable because they are by nature enforceable because they are contracts. -- PICs are part of registry contracts. -- The choice of the dispute processor is made by both parties, not just by the registry, and it would be part of the contract. -- Maybe say “it is our understanding” when we are not simply giving an opinion, but stating what was said elsewhere; say “I believe” where stating an opinion. -- Maybe say “for the purpose of clarification we believe that PICs and RVCs are part of the contract and fully enforceable.” -- Add to the rationale that PICs and RVCs can be enforced. -- We should make a recommendation that it should be in the registry contract that the choice of the dispute processor must be agreed to by the two parties. -- Agree with Alan that voluntary PICs and RVCs should require third party dispute resolution process. Mandatory PICs should stay internal. ACTION ITEM: Leadership will provide to the WG to review redlines to the text of the PICs/RVCs section based on the WG discussion during the meeting on 14 December. b. Consensus Call: Minority Statements -- Are accepted as is; not altered by the WG or leadership. -- Minority Statements will not be included in a Consensus Call -- they will come after. -- An individual can file a Minority Statement; but must be a member. -- We don’t silence the views of any member. -- Consensus Call: state in support of or not in support of the recommendations. -- Leadership will make the determination according to section 3.6 of the WG Guidelines. -- If individuals have stated their non-support for similar reasons, then those could be a minority view – but this is not the same as a Minority Statement in response to the consensus designations. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>
Hi Susan and Jorge Thank you, Susan, for explaining this so well. The same applies for members with background and affiliation from ccNSO. As co-chair of Worktrack 5, that was different. There I was appointed by the ccNSO. But as a member of the SubPro I attend as individual appointed by my employer. So I has been given the "mandate" from my employer to compromise where needed. But of course, with background from the ccTLDs, these are interests that I bring into the discussions and try to take care of where that is possible. Kind regards, Annebeth Annebeth B Lange Domenekonsulent Tel: +47 959 11 559 Mail: abl@annebeth-lange.no
16. des. 2020 kl. 11:24 skrev Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>:
Hi Jorge, just responding to your email regarding the role of members and representation – specifically your comment “I feel it is understood that WG members participate therein according to what is stated in their statement of interests and according to how they registered in the WG (e.g. as individuals, members or reps of certain constituencies, of SO/ACs, etc.)”, for the avoidance of doubt. I can only speak from my own experience, although I believe this is reflective of the GNSO participants as a whole. We participate as individuals (and/or representatives of our employers), and do not represent or speak for the stakeholder group(s) or constituency(ies) we have an affiliation with. When signing up for the WG, we were asked to indicate our affiliation, not to indicate our representative status. I, and I believe many others, did so on the basis that this is useful information in allowing other WG members to understand where we participate in the ICANN community, and therefore to give an insight into our likely perspectives - something which is more fully set-out in the SOI including, potentially, other affiliations we also have either personally or through our employers. None of the members of this WG who have indicated “IPC” as an affiliation have done so intending to indicate that they are a designated representative of, or speaking for, the IPC, and they do not do so. As I said, I believe the same is the case for all the GNSO participants.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude | Valideus E: susan.payne@comlaude.com
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: 15 December 2020 15:18 To: julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 December 15:00 UTC
Dear all
I’m a bit confused about some interpretations coming up lately in this WG regarding the role of members of the WG (zoom recording at 1h:15m more or less).
I feel it is understood that WG members participate therein according to what is stated in their statement of interests and according to how they registered in the WG (e.g. as individuals, members or reps of certain constituencies, of SO/ACs, etc.).
At least for Government reps we normally act per default in representation of our Administrations. And at times we may be representing or conveying opinions on behalf of the entire GAC (normally we will say so explicitly).
As Government reps it is normal and expectable, and has been said many times over the years, that we are required to coordinate amongst different departments and agencies, especially when considering and/or reacting to vast pieces of draft policy recommendations that span multiple areas of public policy.
I guess that the same may be true for other members of the group from different constituencies and SOACs.
I hope that this helps in getting the “assumptions” right…
Kind regards
Jorge
Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Julie Hedlund Gesendet: Montag, 14. Dezember 2020 17:49 An: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 December 15:00 UTC
Dear Working Group members,
Please see below the notes from the WG meeting on 14 December at 15:00 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-14+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro....
Kind regards, Julie == Notes and Action Items:
Action Items:
Topic 8: Conflicts of Interest
Row 13 – WIPO and Row 14 – Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) and PETILLION Law Firm re: Refer to best practice resources. ACTION ITEM: Cite the source as a reference in the rationale.
c. Topic 10: Applicant Freedom of Expression
Row 10 -- Thomas Barrett (Individual); Row 11 -- Internet Governance Project; Row 13 – ICANN org re: Suggests providing greater specificity ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote in the rationale to this ongoing work in WS2 and the Framework of Interpretation.
d. Topic 33: Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation
Row 14 – ALAC ACTION ITEM: Ensure that this outreach is not excluded from Topic 13: Communications recommendations.
AOB: PICs/RVCs: ACTION ITEM: Leadership will provide to the WG to review redlines to the text of the PICs/RVCs section based on the WG discussion during the meeting on 14 December.
Notes:
1. Updates to Statements of Interest: None provided.
2. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the links to the Public Comment Review Tool on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Published+Draft+reports and review the following topics and comments:
a. Update from Small Team – Auctions – References: See the Public Comment Review Tool at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmZRLAsW6wlTyQ8LA3KhOQzU1UABL9zCPWw3...; See the draft Final Report starting on page 163, with Contention Resolution Transparency Requirements starting on page 166 at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-final-report-new-gtld-subsequent-20au...
-- There are some firmly held beliefs either to allow without guardrails other than in the recommendations; others that think the recommendations go far enough. -- At the end of the day although there were fruitful conversations the recommendations in the draft Final Report will stay as they are. -- At the meeting on 11 December we asked if the disclosure requirements were enough to provide protections. -- See what happens in the next round to see if the harmful behavior happens – gather from disclosure data. -- There are strong beliefs on all sides and without data on actual harms it will be hard to get agreement on any changes. -- Question: The Small Team didn’t address the comments that were submitted in the draft Final Report – will the WG address them? Answer: The Small Team did look at a lot of the comments, although we got stuck on the Board’s comments. -- Did look at the IPC comments on exempting .brands from the sealed bid, but didn’t get any traction. -- WG will address the responses to the Board separately after the Final Report is delivered.
b. Topic 8: Conflicts of Interest
Row 10 -- InfoNetworks LLC re: COI provisions should not prevent experts from serving as CPE panelists. Leadership Comments: Question: Would our recommendations prevent experts from serving? Leadership didn’t think that the recommendation would prevent this.
Row 12 -- dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG and Hamburg Top-Level-Domain GmbH re: Geo names panel should be transparent. Leadership Comments: Was this not the case in 2012 round? Not aware that it wasn’t transparent in the previous round. Noted.
Row 13 – WIPO and Row 14 – Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) and PETILLION Law Firm re: Refer to best practice resources. Leadership Comments: Perhaps citing this source? This has been presented as a possible source, for example.
ACTION ITEM: Cite the source as a reference in the rationale.
Row 15 – ICANN org Leadership Comments: Define Conflict of Interest? Not sure it is for the WG to provide Examples.
c. Topic 10: Applicant Freedom of Expression
Row 10 -- Thomas Barrett (Individual); Row 11 -- Internet Governance Project; Row 13 – ICANN org re: Suggests providing greater specificity Leadership Comments: Prefer not to provide examples; the framework of interpretation was developed and ICANN has had an external review. Decided in WS2. Propose a footnote or reference to the more recent reports regarding Human Rights impacts studies and assessment. WG should be cognizant of the ongoing work on the Human Right aspects of WS2 and Freedom of Expression.
Discussion: -- Agree with adding a reference to Workstream 2 work on Human Rights Core Value Framework and implementation. -- It may behoove applicants to consider that Framework. -- What the WG references should be the full community work, not ancillary work. -- The Framework is already active since the bylaws activated it once the Framework was approved. -- We need to ensure there is no 'confusion' between the finalised FOI-HR work and the recommendation *for* Impact assessments being implemented and the continuing discussions from interested parties with specific expertise in Human Rights advocacy more generally... -- The IRT should link to the Human Rights Framework in the AGB - applicants need to know about this. -- If an application is Objected to on Human Rights grounds (moral objection) and we haven't referenced the Human Rights Framework in the AGB, it's going to be an issue. So this probably needs more than just a footnote.
ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote in the rationale to this ongoing work in WS2 and the cite the Framework of Interpretation.
d. Topic 33: Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation
Row 9 – ARTICLE 19 Leadership Comments: Noted; maybe add to the rationale that it's tough to bring a PICDRP because it's hard to show how they have been harmed.
Row 12 – BC Leadership Comments: Noted. ICANN and Registries did make some clarifications to the process recently. And in the 2nd PICDRP case we know that there is not agreement on whether the process was followed.
Row 13 – ICANN Board Leadership Comments: More details needed; maybe add to the rationale that it's tough to bring a PICDRP because it's hard to show how they have been harmed. We do have a recommendation that this should be clear. Also, the Board and Org noted recent improvements that should have covered this issue.
Row 14 – ALAC Leadership Comments: Do we mention dispute proceedings in the outreach/ communication campaign efforts? We think it covers outreach on all aspects of the new gTLD program.
ACTION ITEM: Ensure that this outreach is not excluded from Topic 13: Communications recommendations.
3. AOB:
a. RVCs/PICs
-- Comments from Alan. Needs to be a recommendation that contracts have to be enforceable. If ICANN be involved in the choice of a dispute processor then an registry could pick whoever they want to judge their own case. We need to ensure that the entity judging the case is impartial. -- What prevents a registry from having that in PICs? PICs are part of the Registry contract. -- WG should provide rules for dispute providers. -- Didn’t think we needed to make a recommendation that contracts must be enforceable because they are by nature enforceable because they are contracts. -- PICs are part of registry contracts. -- The choice of the dispute processor is made by both parties, not just by the registry, and it would be part of the contract. -- Maybe say “it is our understanding” when we are not simply giving an opinion, but stating what was said elsewhere; say “I believe” where stating an opinion. -- Maybe say “for the purpose of clarification we believe that PICs and RVCs are part of the contract and fully enforceable.” -- Add to the rationale that PICs and RVCs can be enforced. -- We should make a recommendation that it should be in the registry contract that the choice of the dispute processor must be agreed to by the two parties. -- Agree with Alan that voluntary PICs and RVCs should require third party dispute resolution process. Mandatory PICs should stay internal.
ACTION ITEM: Leadership will provide to the WG to review redlines to the text of the PICs/RVCs section based on the WG discussion during the meeting on 14 December.
b. Consensus Call: Minority Statements
-- Are accepted as is; not altered by the WG or leadership. -- Minority Statements will not be included in a Consensus Call -- they will come after. -- An individual can file a Minority Statement; but must be a member. -- We don’t silence the views of any member. -- Consensus Call: state in support of or not in support of the recommendations. -- Leadership will make the determination according to section 3.6 of the WG Guidelines. -- If individuals have stated their non-support for similar reasons, then those could be a minority view – but this is not the same as a Minority Statement in response to the consensus designations. The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Susan, Just a comment that when a WG member who is an IPC member is speaking for the IPC, the member so states. For example, you know that recently the IPC coordinated and agreed on its position with respect to PICs and RVCs. That draft was sent by Paul to the list on behalf of the IPC. So there are times when we coordinate for that purpose and hopefully the IPC would not be prohibited from coordinating to comment on a Consensus Designation. Nor do the WG Guidelines prohibit any group of WG members from coordinating for the purpose of filing a Minority View as defined by the Consensus Call provisions of the PDP Manual. In fact, Leadership is supposed to “encourage” the filing of Minority Views in cases of Divergence. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 3:24 AM To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 December 15:00 UTC [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hi Jorge, just responding to your email regarding the role of members and representation – specifically your comment “I feel it is understood that WG members participate therein according to what is stated in their statement of interests and according to how they registered in the WG (e.g. as individuals, members or reps of certain constituencies, of SO/ACs, etc.)”, for the avoidance of doubt. I can only speak from my own experience, although I believe this is reflective of the GNSO participants as a whole. We participate as individuals (and/or representatives of our employers), and do not represent or speak for the stakeholder group(s) or constituency(ies) we have an affiliation with. When signing up for the WG, we were asked to indicate our affiliation, not to indicate our representative status. I, and I believe many others, did so on the basis that this is useful information in allowing other WG members to understand where we participate in the ICANN community, and therefore to give an insight into our likely perspectives - something which is more fully set-out in the SOI including, potentially, other affiliations we also have either personally or through our employers. None of the members of this WG who have indicated “IPC” as an affiliation have done so intending to indicate that they are a designated representative of, or speaking for, the IPC, and they do not do so. As I said, I believe the same is the case for all the GNSO participants. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude | Valideus E: susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: 15 December 2020 15:18 To: julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 December 15:00 UTC Dear all I’m a bit confused about some interpretations coming up lately in this WG regarding the role of members of the WG (zoom recording at 1h:15m more or less). I feel it is understood that WG members participate therein according to what is stated in their statement of interests and according to how they registered in the WG (e.g. as individuals, members or reps of certain constituencies, of SO/ACs, etc.). At least for Government reps we normally act per default in representation of our Administrations. And at times we may be representing or conveying opinions on behalf of the entire GAC (normally we will say so explicitly). As Government reps it is normal and expectable, and has been said many times over the years, that we are required to coordinate amongst different departments and agencies, especially when considering and/or reacting to vast pieces of draft policy recommendations that span multiple areas of public policy. I guess that the same may be true for other members of the group from different constituencies and SOACs. I hope that this helps in getting the “assumptions” right… Kind regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> Im Auftrag von Julie Hedlund Gesendet: Montag, 14. Dezember 2020 17:49 An: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 December 15:00 UTC Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the WG meeting on 14 December at 15:00 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-14+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie == Notes and Action Items: Action Items: Topic 8: Conflicts of Interest<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRy...> Row 13 – WIPO and Row 14 – Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) and PETILLION Law Firm re: Refer to best practice resources. ACTION ITEM: Cite the source as a reference in the rationale. c. Topic 10: Applicant Freedom of Expression<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bxEnuFrtI7996NnGPMR00JEwM6KK5m8Y_AGp...> Row 10 -- Thomas Barrett (Individual); Row 11 -- Internet Governance Project; Row 13 – ICANN org re: Suggests providing greater specificity ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote in the rationale to this ongoing work in WS2 and the Framework of Interpretation. d. Topic 33: Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pk3SadfiropKdD387FrgELdulfZuTbUCivf1...> Row 14 – ALAC ACTION ITEM: Ensure that this outreach is not excluded from Topic 13: Communications recommendations. AOB: PICs/RVCs: ACTION ITEM: Leadership will provide to the WG to review redlines to the text of the PICs/RVCs section based on the WG discussion during the meeting on 14 December. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: None provided. 2. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the links to the Public Comment Review Tool on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Published+Draft+reports and review the following topics and comments: a. Update from Small Team – Auctions – References: See the Public Comment Review Tool at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmZRLAsW6wlTyQ8LA3KhOQzU1UABL9zCPWw3...; See the draft Final Report starting on page 163, with Contention Resolution Transparency Requirements starting on page 166 at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-final-report-new-gtld-subsequent-20au... -- There are some firmly held beliefs either to allow without guardrails other than in the recommendations; others that think the recommendations go far enough. -- At the end of the day although there were fruitful conversations the recommendations in the draft Final Report will stay as they are. -- At the meeting on 11 December we asked if the disclosure requirements were enough to provide protections. -- See what happens in the next round to see if the harmful behavior happens – gather from disclosure data. -- There are strong beliefs on all sides and without data on actual harms it will be hard to get agreement on any changes. -- Question: The Small Team didn’t address the comments that were submitted in the draft Final Report – will the WG address them? Answer: The Small Team did look at a lot of the comments, although we got stuck on the Board’s comments. -- Did look at the IPC comments on exempting .brands from the sealed bid, but didn’t get any traction. -- WG will address the responses to the Board separately after the Final Report is delivered. b. Topic 8: Conflicts of Interest<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRy...> Row 10 -- InfoNetworks LLC re: COI provisions should not prevent experts from serving as CPE panelists. Leadership Comments: Question: Would our recommendations prevent experts from serving? Leadership didn’t think that the recommendation would prevent this. Row 12 -- dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG and Hamburg Top-Level-Domain GmbH re: Geo names panel should be transparent. Leadership Comments: Was this not the case in 2012 round? Not aware that it wasn’t transparent in the previous round. Noted. Row 13 – WIPO and Row 14 – Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) and PETILLION Law Firm re: Refer to best practice resources. Leadership Comments: Perhaps citing this source? This has been presented as a possible source, for example. ACTION ITEM: Cite the source as a reference in the rationale. Row 15 – ICANN org Leadership Comments: Define Conflict of Interest? Not sure it is for the WG to provide Examples. c. Topic 10: Applicant Freedom of Expression<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bxEnuFrtI7996NnGPMR00JEwM6KK5m8Y_AGp...> Row 10 -- Thomas Barrett (Individual); Row 11 -- Internet Governance Project; Row 13 – ICANN org re: Suggests providing greater specificity Leadership Comments: Prefer not to provide examples; the framework of interpretation was developed and ICANN has had an external review. Decided in WS2. Propose a footnote or reference to the more recent reports regarding Human Rights impacts studies and assessment. WG should be cognizant of the ongoing work on the Human Right aspects of WS2 and Freedom of Expression. Discussion: -- Agree with adding a reference to Workstream 2 work on Human Rights Core Value Framework and implementation. -- It may behoove applicants to consider that Framework. -- What the WG references should be the full community work, not ancillary work. -- The Framework is already active since the bylaws activated it once the Framework was approved. -- We need to ensure there is no 'confusion' between the finalised FOI-HR work and the recommendation *for* Impact assessments being implemented and the continuing discussions from interested parties with specific expertise in Human Rights advocacy more generally... -- The IRT should link to the Human Rights Framework in the AGB - applicants need to know about this. -- If an application is Objected to on Human Rights grounds (moral objection) and we haven't referenced the Human Rights Framework in the AGB, it's going to be an issue. So this probably needs more than just a footnote. ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote in the rationale to this ongoing work in WS2 and the cite the Framework of Interpretation. d. Topic 33: Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pk3SadfiropKdD387FrgELdulfZuTbUCivf1...> Row 9 – ARTICLE 19 Leadership Comments: Noted; maybe add to the rationale that it's tough to bring a PICDRP because it's hard to show how they have been harmed. Row 12 – BC Leadership Comments: Noted. ICANN and Registries did make some clarifications to the process recently. And in the 2nd PICDRP case we know that there is not agreement on whether the process was followed. Row 13 – ICANN Board Leadership Comments: More details needed; maybe add to the rationale that it's tough to bring a PICDRP because it's hard to show how they have been harmed. We do have a recommendation that this should be clear. Also, the Board and Org noted recent improvements that should have covered this issue. Row 14 – ALAC Leadership Comments: Do we mention dispute proceedings in the outreach/ communication campaign efforts? We think it covers outreach on all aspects of the new gTLD program. ACTION ITEM: Ensure that this outreach is not excluded from Topic 13: Communications recommendations. 3. AOB: a. RVCs/PICs -- Comments from Alan. Needs to be a recommendation that contracts have to be enforceable. If ICANN be involved in the choice of a dispute processor then an registry could pick whoever they want to judge their own case. We need to ensure that the entity judging the case is impartial. -- What prevents a registry from having that in PICs? PICs are part of the Registry contract. -- WG should provide rules for dispute providers. -- Didn’t think we needed to make a recommendation that contracts must be enforceable because they are by nature enforceable because they are contracts. -- PICs are part of registry contracts. -- The choice of the dispute processor is made by both parties, not just by the registry, and it would be part of the contract. -- Maybe say “it is our understanding” when we are not simply giving an opinion, but stating what was said elsewhere; say “I believe” where stating an opinion. -- Maybe say “for the purpose of clarification we believe that PICs and RVCs are part of the contract and fully enforceable.” -- Add to the rationale that PICs and RVCs can be enforced. -- We should make a recommendation that it should be in the registry contract that the choice of the dispute processor must be agreed to by the two parties. -- Agree with Alan that voluntary PICs and RVCs should require third party dispute resolution process. Mandatory PICs should stay internal. ACTION ITEM: Leadership will provide to the WG to review redlines to the text of the PICs/RVCs section based on the WG discussion during the meeting on 14 December. b. Consensus Call: Minority Statements -- Are accepted as is; not altered by the WG or leadership. -- Minority Statements will not be included in a Consensus Call -- they will come after. -- An individual can file a Minority Statement; but must be a member. -- We don’t silence the views of any member. -- Consensus Call: state in support of or not in support of the recommendations. -- Leadership will make the determination according to section 3.6 of the WG Guidelines. -- If individuals have stated their non-support for similar reasons, then those could be a minority view – but this is not the same as a Minority Statement in response to the consensus designations. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com> ________________________________ 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.
Thanks Anne – certainly. But absent an express statement, we are all participating personally and not expressing a constituency view. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude | Valideus D: +44 20 7421 8255 M: +44 7971 661175 E: susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> Sent: 16 December 2020 21:04 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 December 15:00 UTC Hi Susan, Just a comment that when a WG member who is an IPC member is speaking for the IPC, the member so states. For example, you know that recently the IPC coordinated and agreed on its position with respect to PICs and RVCs. That draft was sent by Paul to the list on behalf of the IPC. So there are times when we coordinate for that purpose and hopefully the IPC would not be prohibited from coordinating to comment on a Consensus Designation. Nor do the WG Guidelines prohibit any group of WG members from coordinating for the purpose of filing a Minority View as defined by the Consensus Call provisions of the PDP Manual. In fact, Leadership is supposed to “encourage” the filing of Minority Views in cases of Divergence. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 3:24 AM To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 December 15:00 UTC [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hi Jorge, just responding to your email regarding the role of members and representation – specifically your comment “I feel it is understood that WG members participate therein according to what is stated in their statement of interests and according to how they registered in the WG (e.g. as individuals, members or reps of certain constituencies, of SO/ACs, etc.)”, for the avoidance of doubt. I can only speak from my own experience, although I believe this is reflective of the GNSO participants as a whole. We participate as individuals (and/or representatives of our employers), and do not represent or speak for the stakeholder group(s) or constituency(ies) we have an affiliation with. When signing up for the WG, we were asked to indicate our affiliation, not to indicate our representative status. I, and I believe many others, did so on the basis that this is useful information in allowing other WG members to understand where we participate in the ICANN community, and therefore to give an insight into our likely perspectives - something which is more fully set-out in the SOI including, potentially, other affiliations we also have either personally or through our employers. None of the members of this WG who have indicated “IPC” as an affiliation have done so intending to indicate that they are a designated representative of, or speaking for, the IPC, and they do not do so. As I said, I believe the same is the case for all the GNSO participants. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude | Valideus E: susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: 15 December 2020 15:18 To: julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 December 15:00 UTC Dear all I’m a bit confused about some interpretations coming up lately in this WG regarding the role of members of the WG (zoom recording at 1h:15m more or less). I feel it is understood that WG members participate therein according to what is stated in their statement of interests and according to how they registered in the WG (e.g. as individuals, members or reps of certain constituencies, of SO/ACs, etc.). At least for Government reps we normally act per default in representation of our Administrations. And at times we may be representing or conveying opinions on behalf of the entire GAC (normally we will say so explicitly). As Government reps it is normal and expectable, and has been said many times over the years, that we are required to coordinate amongst different departments and agencies, especially when considering and/or reacting to vast pieces of draft policy recommendations that span multiple areas of public policy. I guess that the same may be true for other members of the group from different constituencies and SOACs. I hope that this helps in getting the “assumptions” right… Kind regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> Im Auftrag von Julie Hedlund Gesendet: Montag, 14. Dezember 2020 17:49 An: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 December 15:00 UTC Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the WG meeting on 14 December at 15:00 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-14+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie == Notes and Action Items: Action Items: Topic 8: Conflicts of Interest<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRy...> Row 13 – WIPO and Row 14 – Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) and PETILLION Law Firm re: Refer to best practice resources. ACTION ITEM: Cite the source as a reference in the rationale. c. Topic 10: Applicant Freedom of Expression<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bxEnuFrtI7996NnGPMR00JEwM6KK5m8Y_AGp...> Row 10 -- Thomas Barrett (Individual); Row 11 -- Internet Governance Project; Row 13 – ICANN org re: Suggests providing greater specificity ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote in the rationale to this ongoing work in WS2 and the Framework of Interpretation. d. Topic 33: Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pk3SadfiropKdD387FrgELdulfZuTbUCivf1...> Row 14 – ALAC ACTION ITEM: Ensure that this outreach is not excluded from Topic 13: Communications recommendations. AOB: PICs/RVCs: ACTION ITEM: Leadership will provide to the WG to review redlines to the text of the PICs/RVCs section based on the WG discussion during the meeting on 14 December. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: None provided. 2. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the links to the Public Comment Review Tool on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Published+Draft+reports and review the following topics and comments: a. Update from Small Team – Auctions – References: See the Public Comment Review Tool at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmZRLAsW6wlTyQ8LA3KhOQzU1UABL9zCPWw3...; See the draft Final Report starting on page 163, with Contention Resolution Transparency Requirements starting on page 166 at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-final-report-new-gtld-subsequent-20au... -- There are some firmly held beliefs either to allow without guardrails other than in the recommendations; others that think the recommendations go far enough. -- At the end of the day although there were fruitful conversations the recommendations in the draft Final Report will stay as they are. -- At the meeting on 11 December we asked if the disclosure requirements were enough to provide protections. -- See what happens in the next round to see if the harmful behavior happens – gather from disclosure data. -- There are strong beliefs on all sides and without data on actual harms it will be hard to get agreement on any changes. -- Question: The Small Team didn’t address the comments that were submitted in the draft Final Report – will the WG address them? Answer: The Small Team did look at a lot of the comments, although we got stuck on the Board’s comments. -- Did look at the IPC comments on exempting .brands from the sealed bid, but didn’t get any traction. -- WG will address the responses to the Board separately after the Final Report is delivered. b. Topic 8: Conflicts of Interest<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRy...> Row 10 -- InfoNetworks LLC re: COI provisions should not prevent experts from serving as CPE panelists. Leadership Comments: Question: Would our recommendations prevent experts from serving? Leadership didn’t think that the recommendation would prevent this. Row 12 -- dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG and Hamburg Top-Level-Domain GmbH re: Geo names panel should be transparent. Leadership Comments: Was this not the case in 2012 round? Not aware that it wasn’t transparent in the previous round. Noted. Row 13 – WIPO and Row 14 – Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) and PETILLION Law Firm re: Refer to best practice resources. Leadership Comments: Perhaps citing this source? This has been presented as a possible source, for example. ACTION ITEM: Cite the source as a reference in the rationale. Row 15 – ICANN org Leadership Comments: Define Conflict of Interest? Not sure it is for the WG to provide Examples. c. Topic 10: Applicant Freedom of Expression<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bxEnuFrtI7996NnGPMR00JEwM6KK5m8Y_AGp...> Row 10 -- Thomas Barrett (Individual); Row 11 -- Internet Governance Project; Row 13 – ICANN org re: Suggests providing greater specificity Leadership Comments: Prefer not to provide examples; the framework of interpretation was developed and ICANN has had an external review. Decided in WS2. Propose a footnote or reference to the more recent reports regarding Human Rights impacts studies and assessment. WG should be cognizant of the ongoing work on the Human Right aspects of WS2 and Freedom of Expression. Discussion: -- Agree with adding a reference to Workstream 2 work on Human Rights Core Value Framework and implementation. -- It may behoove applicants to consider that Framework. -- What the WG references should be the full community work, not ancillary work. -- The Framework is already active since the bylaws activated it once the Framework was approved. -- We need to ensure there is no 'confusion' between the finalised FOI-HR work and the recommendation *for* Impact assessments being implemented and the continuing discussions from interested parties with specific expertise in Human Rights advocacy more generally... -- The IRT should link to the Human Rights Framework in the AGB - applicants need to know about this. -- If an application is Objected to on Human Rights grounds (moral objection) and we haven't referenced the Human Rights Framework in the AGB, it's going to be an issue. So this probably needs more than just a footnote. ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote in the rationale to this ongoing work in WS2 and the cite the Framework of Interpretation. d. Topic 33: Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pk3SadfiropKdD387FrgELdulfZuTbUCivf1...> Row 9 – ARTICLE 19 Leadership Comments: Noted; maybe add to the rationale that it's tough to bring a PICDRP because it's hard to show how they have been harmed. Row 12 – BC Leadership Comments: Noted. ICANN and Registries did make some clarifications to the process recently. And in the 2nd PICDRP case we know that there is not agreement on whether the process was followed. Row 13 – ICANN Board Leadership Comments: More details needed; maybe add to the rationale that it's tough to bring a PICDRP because it's hard to show how they have been harmed. We do have a recommendation that this should be clear. Also, the Board and Org noted recent improvements that should have covered this issue. Row 14 – ALAC Leadership Comments: Do we mention dispute proceedings in the outreach/ communication campaign efforts? We think it covers outreach on all aspects of the new gTLD program. ACTION ITEM: Ensure that this outreach is not excluded from Topic 13: Communications recommendations. 3. AOB: a. RVCs/PICs -- Comments from Alan. Needs to be a recommendation that contracts have to be enforceable. If ICANN be involved in the choice of a dispute processor then an registry could pick whoever they want to judge their own case. We need to ensure that the entity judging the case is impartial. -- What prevents a registry from having that in PICs? PICs are part of the Registry contract. -- WG should provide rules for dispute providers. -- Didn’t think we needed to make a recommendation that contracts must be enforceable because they are by nature enforceable because they are contracts. -- PICs are part of registry contracts. -- The choice of the dispute processor is made by both parties, not just by the registry, and it would be part of the contract. -- Maybe say “it is our understanding” when we are not simply giving an opinion, but stating what was said elsewhere; say “I believe” where stating an opinion. -- Maybe say “for the purpose of clarification we believe that PICs and RVCs are part of the contract and fully enforceable.” -- Add to the rationale that PICs and RVCs can be enforced. -- We should make a recommendation that it should be in the registry contract that the choice of the dispute processor must be agreed to by the two parties. -- Agree with Alan that voluntary PICs and RVCs should require third party dispute resolution process. Mandatory PICs should stay internal. ACTION ITEM: Leadership will provide to the WG to review redlines to the text of the PICs/RVCs section based on the WG discussion during the meeting on 14 December. b. Consensus Call: Minority Statements -- Are accepted as is; not altered by the WG or leadership. -- Minority Statements will not be included in a Consensus Call -- they will come after. -- An individual can file a Minority Statement; but must be a member. -- We don’t silence the views of any member. -- Consensus Call: state in support of or not in support of the recommendations. -- Leadership will make the determination according to section 3.6 of the WG Guidelines. -- If individuals have stated their non-support for similar reasons, then those could be a minority view – but this is not the same as a Minority Statement in response to the consensus designations. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com> ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>
participants (5)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Annebeth Lange -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Julie Hedlund -
Susan Payne