Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 28 March 2016
Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the actions captured by staff from today’s meeting and let us know if you have comments, changes, or questions. Note that a transcript and MP3 also will be available. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 28 March 2016 1. Work Tracks 3, 4, 5 Track 3 -- String Contention, Objections, Disputes Clarifying Questions: a. Kavouss Arasteh: Do we have a checklist of all those problems/difficulties with respect to similarity/singular v. plural so that someone could update it? Answer (Jeff Neuman) — It would be very valuable to produce a list of the singular v. plural, as well as group names with similar meaning. In response to Paul McGrady's note -- there were initial evaluations and objections -- should user confusion in a trademark sense be part of an initial application/evaluation, or as part of an objection? If in the initital evaluation what factors would go into that evaluation? Action Item: Produce a list of the singular v. plural, as well as group names with similar meaning. b. Alan Greenberg: Re: Level playing fields: How much emphasis should be made on this issue? Have we decided if this is problematic. Answer (Jeff Neuman) — This is an overall issue. Same with safeguards. No decisions have been made at this point. Action Items: Look at all the objections that were filed, how they turned out, consistency. Check to see if the CCT Review Team may be doing this. Look at the role of the independent objector. c. Kavouss Arasteh: Who is authorized to raise a question or objection based on the public interest? Should we have some type of rationale? Do we also accept political objections? Answer (Jeff Neuman): In 2012 anyone was entitled to file a public interest objection, but it did cost money. The grounds for the objection were in the Applicant Guidebook. There was a process to ensure that the claim had some merit. There was no formal objection ground for political objections, but the GAC or governments could file early warnings. The GAC could always provide advice during the process. Discussion Notes: Paul McGrady: Look very carefully at the GAC's role and how that played out in the first round. Ken Stubbs: Develop a process and methodologies for dealing with objections to avoid them dragging out. Greg Shatan: Re: consistency of outcomes -- we need to look at these things as processes and how this relates to the auction process. Jeff Neuman: Include in this track contention resolution aspects, such as auctions, indirect contentions, etc. Jay Westerdal: Some of the issues may take a year or two longer to resolve. Jeff Neuman: Not sure how we can have an impact on the previous round. Falls into how we stick to the principle that we are not advantaging/disadvantaging previous versus future applicants. Track 4: Internationalized Domain Names Clarifying Questions: Paul McGrady: How far are we allowed to go with respect to encouraging adoption of internationalized domain names? Can we recommend that ICANN lower the cost on IDNs? Answer (Jeff Neuman) — It might be that we could discuss issues -- but not exact pricing -- that in theory that you could have a recommendation that ICANN should have a subsidy, or that ICANN should encourage. Track 5: Technical & Operations Clarifying Questions: Alan Greenberg: We should be getting a report on whether the questions on the accreditation process met the needs or should they be changed. Answer (Jeff Neuman) — I think ICANN staff have said they want to participate in this PDP WG. They should be active members and listed on the wiki page. Discussion Notes: Mary Wong: Note that the WG could ask for answers from staff for specific questions. Alan Greenberg: I think we want something written from them, but much of this is implementation so it is not clear how deep we need to get into it. Jeff Neuman: It might be in the implementation report that they did. See: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/implementation/program-review-29jan16-.... Also the comments on the report: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-draft-review-23sep15/. Avri Doria: We should make sure we look at relates to the original policy that the GNSO came out with that all registry requirements don't need to be the same. Jeff Neuman: I could see that as a good issue for track 5. Action Items: PDP WG support staff will take the action to add staff to the WG member list on the wiki. The PDP WG will direct specific questions to staff as needed. 3. Letter from Steve Crocker Discussion Notes: Jeff Neuman: I do think that the creation of yet another group to look at these questions would create a lot of overlap. I think these questions are captured in the issues we have laid out and if not we should make sure they are in there. We could respond to the Board by thanking them and that these are issues that are properly for the GNSO to consider. Alan Greenberg: We can say, "noted" and the items are in our work list. Steve Coates: General consensus is that this is a good letter. It seems that a short response is necessary and appropriate. Any questions with that approach? Alan Greenberg: And we will coordinate with the CCT Review Team. Jeff Neuman: Amr notes that these issues were brought up about the 2012 round in Marrakech. We should make it clear that our jurisdiction is only over subsequent procedures, not current TLDs. Alan Greenberg: There is no intent in the current ALAC advice to fix problems with the current round. Action Item: Staff will assist in drafting a brief response to the Board. 4. Liaisons from SOs/Acs Discussion Notes: It would be up to the SO and AC. They would not have special status in this WG, except for the GNSO Liaison. They may have liaison status in their groups. May be useful perhaps with the GAC, if they feel the need. 5. Next Meeting: Monday, 04 April at 2200 UTC.
Dear Co-Chairs Please kindly be informed that the outcome of this WG shall in no way decrease or degrade the Role if GAC in the new round if gTLD . In other words GAC preserves and maintains its rights as previously contained in AGB. GAC expect from this process improvements and NOT losing any right it already practiced. I am aware of the good? Relation between GNSO and GAC which was highly demonstrated in CCWG by GNSO people which resulted GAC losing some if its current power( read testimony of Some GBSO colleagues before the House sub- committee. I hope we will not end up further division and polarisation and even discrimination in treating SO/AC .Stress Test 18 and Carve-Out gave already negatively and adversely affected GAC. GNSO needs to take a more positive and faire attitude vis a vis GAC. Regrads Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Mar 2016, at 19:46, Julie Hedlund via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear PDP WG members,
Please see below the actions captured by staff from today’s meeting and let us know if you have comments, changes, or questions. Note that a transcript and MP3 also will be available.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 28 March 2016
1. Work Tracks 3, 4, 5
Track 3 -- String Contention, Objections, Disputes
Clarifying Questions: a. Kavouss Arasteh: Do we have a checklist of all those problems/difficulties with respect to similarity/singular v. plural so that someone could update it?
Answer (Jeff Neuman) — It would be very valuable to produce a list of the singular v. plural, as well as group names with similar meaning. In response to Paul McGrady's note -- there were initial evaluations and objections -- should user confusion in a trademark sense be part of an initial application/evaluation, or as part of an objection? If in the initital evaluation what factors would go into that evaluation?
Action Item: Produce a list of the singular v. plural, as well as group names with similar meaning.
b. Alan Greenberg: Re: Level playing fields: How much emphasis should be made on this issue? Have we decided if this is problematic.
Answer (Jeff Neuman) — This is an overall issue. Same with safeguards. No decisions have been made at this point.
Action Items: Look at all the objections that were filed, how they turned out, consistency. Check to see if the CCT Review Team may be doing this. Look at the role of the independent objector.
c. Kavouss Arasteh: Who is authorized to raise a question or objection based on the public interest? Should we have some type of rationale? Do we also accept political objections?
Answer (Jeff Neuman): In 2012 anyone was entitled to file a public interest objection, but it did cost money. The grounds for the objection were in the Applicant Guidebook. There was a process to ensure that the claim had some merit. There was no formal objection ground for political objections, but the GAC or governments could file early warnings. The GAC could always provide advice during the process.
Discussion Notes: Paul McGrady: Look very carefully at the GAC's role and how that played out in the first round. Ken Stubbs: Develop a process and methodologies for dealing with objections to avoid them dragging out. Greg Shatan: Re: consistency of outcomes -- we need to look at these things as processes and how this relates to the auction process. Jeff Neuman: Include in this track contention resolution aspects, such as auctions, indirect contentions, etc. Jay Westerdal: Some of the issues may take a year or two longer to resolve. Jeff Neuman: Not sure how we can have an impact on the previous round. Falls into how we stick to the principle that we are not advantaging/disadvantaging previous versus future applicants.
Track 4: Internationalized Domain Names
Clarifying Questions: Paul McGrady: How far are we allowed to go with respect to encouraging adoption of internationalized domain names? Can we recommend that ICANN lower the cost on IDNs? Answer (Jeff Neuman) — It might be that we could discuss issues -- but not exact pricing -- that in theory that you could have a recommendation that ICANN should have a subsidy, or that ICANN should encourage.
Track 5: Technical & Operations
Clarifying Questions: Alan Greenberg: We should be getting a report on whether the questions on the accreditation process met the needs or should they be changed. Answer (Jeff Neuman) — I think ICANN staff have said they want to participate in this PDP WG. They should be active members and listed on the wiki page.
Discussion Notes: Mary Wong: Note that the WG could ask for answers from staff for specific questions. Alan Greenberg: I think we want something written from them, but much of this is implementation so it is not clear how deep we need to get into it. Jeff Neuman: It might be in the implementation report that they did. See: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/implementation/program-review-29jan16-.... Also the comments on the report: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-draft-review-23sep15/. Avri Doria: We should make sure we look at relates to the original policy that the GNSO came out with that all registry requirements don't need to be the same. Jeff Neuman: I could see that as a good issue for track 5.
Action Items: PDP WG support staff will take the action to add staff to the WG member list on the wiki. The PDP WG will direct specific questions to staff as needed.
3. Letter from Steve Crocker
Discussion Notes: Jeff Neuman: I do think that the creation of yet another group to look at these questions would create a lot of overlap. I think these questions are captured in the issues we have laid out and if not we should make sure they are in there. We could respond to the Board by thanking them and that these are issues that are properly for the GNSO to consider. Alan Greenberg: We can say, "noted" and the items are in our work list. Steve Coates: General consensus is that this is a good letter. It seems that a short response is necessary and appropriate. Any questions with that approach? Alan Greenberg: And we will coordinate with the CCT Review Team. Jeff Neuman: Amr notes that these issues were brought up about the 2012 round in Marrakech. We should make it clear that our jurisdiction is only over subsequent procedures, not current TLDs. Alan Greenberg: There is no intent in the current ALAC advice to fix problems with the current round.
Action Item: Staff will assist in drafting a brief response to the Board.
4. Liaisons from SOs/Acs
Discussion Notes: It would be up to the SO and AC. They would not have special status in this WG, except for the GNSO Liaison. They may have liaison status in their groups. May be useful perhaps with the GAC, if they feel the need.
5. Next Meeting: Monday, 04 April at 2200 UTC.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
can you give us a link to the testimony referred to in your email below ? Ken Stubbs On 3/29/16 04:14, Kavouss Arasteh via Gnso-newgtld-wg wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs Please kindly be informed that the outcome of this WG shall in no way decrease or degrade the Role if GAC in the new round if gTLD . In other words GAC preserves and maintains its rights as previously contained in AGB. GAC expect from this process improvements and NOT losing any right it already practiced. I am aware of the good? Relation between GNSO and GAC which was highly demonstrated in CCWG by GNSO people which resulted GAC losing some if its current power( read testimony of Some GBSO colleagues before the House sub- committee. I hope we will not end up further division and polarisation and even discrimination in treating SO/AC .Stress Test 18 and Carve-Out gave already negatively and adversely affected GAC. GNSO needs to take a more positive and faire attitude vis a vis GAC. Regrads Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Mar 2016, at 19:46, Julie Hedlund via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear PDP WG members,
Please see below the actions captured by staff from today’s meeting and let us know if you have comments, changes, or questions. Note that a transcript and MP3 also will be available.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director * * *Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 28 March 2016*
/1. Work Tracks 3, 4, 5/
_Track 3 -- String Contention, Objections, Disputes_
Clarifying Questions: a. Kavouss Arasteh: Do we have a checklist of all those problems/difficulties with respect to similarity/singular v. plural so that someone could update it?
Answer (Jeff Neuman) — It would be very valuable to produce a list of the singular v. plural, as well as group names with similar meaning. In response to Paul McGrady's note -- there were initial evaluations and objections -- should user confusion in a trademark sense be part of an initial application/evaluation, or as part of an objection? If in the initital evaluation what factors would go into that evaluation?
*Action Item*: Produce a list of the singular v. plural, as well as group names with similar meaning.
b. Alan Greenberg: Re: Level playing fields: How much emphasis should be made on this issue? Have we decided if this is problematic.
Answer (Jeff Neuman) — This is an overall issue. Same with safeguards. No decisions have been made at this point.
*Action Items:* Look at all the objections that were filed, how they turned out, consistency. Check to see if the CCT Review Team may be doing this. Look at the role of the independent objector.
c. Kavouss Arasteh: Who is authorized to raise a question or objection based on the public interest? Should we have some type of rationale? Do we also accept political objections?
Answer (Jeff Neuman): In 2012 anyone was entitled to file a public interest objection, but it did cost money. The grounds for the objection were in the Applicant Guidebook. There was a process to ensure that the claim had some merit. There was no formal objection ground for political objections, but the GAC or governments could file early warnings. The GAC could always provide advice during the process.
*Discussion Notes: * Paul McGrady: Look very carefully at the GAC's role and how that played out in the first round. Ken Stubbs: Develop a process and methodologies for dealing with objections to avoid them dragging out. Greg Shatan: Re: consistency of outcomes -- we need to look at these things as processes and how this relates to the auction process. Jeff Neuman: Include in this track contention resolution aspects, such as auctions, indirect contentions, etc. Jay Westerdal: Some of the issues may take a year or two longer to resolve. Jeff Neuman: Not sure how we can have an impact on the previous round. Falls into how we stick to the principle that we are not advantaging/disadvantaging previous versus future applicants.
_Track 4: Internationalized Domain Names_
Clarifying Questions: Paul McGrady: How far are we allowed to go with respect to encouraging adoption of internationalized domain names? Can we recommend that ICANN lower the cost on IDNs? Answer (Jeff Neuman) — It might be that we could discuss issues -- but not exact pricing -- that in theory that you could have a recommendation that ICANN should have a subsidy, or that ICANN should encourage.
_Track 5: Technical & Operations_
Clarifying Questions: Alan Greenberg: We should be getting a report on whether the questions on the accreditation process met the needs or should they be changed. Answer (Jeff Neuman) — I think ICANN staff have said they want to participate in this PDP WG. They should be active members and listed on the wiki page.
*Discussion Notes:* Mary Wong: Note that the WG could ask for answers from staff for specific questions. Alan Greenberg: I think we want something written from them, but much of this is implementation so it is not clear how deep we need to get into it. Jeff Neuman: It might be in the implementation report that they did. See: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/implementation/program-review-29jan16-.... Also the comments on the report: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-draft-review-23sep15/. Avri Doria: We should make sure we look at relates to the original policy that the GNSO came out with that all registry requirements don't need to be the same. Jeff Neuman: I could see that as a good issue for track 5.
*Action Items:* PDP WG support staff will take the action to add staff to the WG member list on the wiki. The PDP WG will direct specific questions to staff as needed.
/3. Letter from Steve Crocker/
*Discussion Notes:* Jeff Neuman: I do think that the creation of yet another group to look at these questions would create a lot of overlap. I think these questions are captured in the issues we have laid out and if not we should make sure they are in there. We could respond to the Board by thanking them and that these are issues that are properly for the GNSO to consider. Alan Greenberg: We can say, "noted" and the items are in our work list. Steve Coates: General consensus is that this is a good letter. It seems that a short response is necessary and appropriate. Any questions with that approach? Alan Greenberg: And we will coordinate with the CCT Review Team. Jeff Neuman: Amr notes that these issues were brought up about the 2012 round in Marrakech. We should make it clear that our jurisdiction is only over subsequent procedures, not current TLDs. Alan Greenberg: There is no intent in the current ALAC advice to fix problems with the current round.
*Action Item*: Staff will assist in drafting a brief response to the Board.
/4. Liaisons from SOs/Acs/
*Discussion Notes:* It would be up to the SO and AC. They would not have special status in this WG, except for the GNSO Liaison. They may have liaison status in their groups. May be useful perhaps with the GAC, if they feel the need.
5. /Next Meeting: /Monday, 04 April at 2200 UTC.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Hi, The political issues regarding Advisory Committees and Accountability changes are not part of our charter. I would ask people to keep the discussions on this list to subsequent procedures that fall within the defined constructs of ICANN organization. To respond to your request Kavouss: it is not the business of this group to deal with the decreasing or degrading anyone's role in subsequent procedures, whether it turns out to be rounds or some other set of procedures. I fully endorse the goal of ever improved working relationship between the GAC and the GNSO. I am happy to see members of the GAC participating in this WG. Thanks for your note. avri On 29-Mar-16 04:14, Kavouss Arasteh via Gnso-newgtld-wg wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs Please kindly be informed that the outcome of this WG shall in no way decrease or degrade the Role if GAC in the new round if gTLD . In other words GAC preserves and maintains its rights as previously contained in AGB. GAC expect from this process improvements and NOT losing any right it already practiced. I am aware of the good? Relation between GNSO and GAC which was highly demonstrated in CCWG by GNSO people which resulted GAC losing some if its current power( read testimony of Some GBSO colleagues before the House sub- committee. I hope we will not end up further division and polarisation and even discrimination in treating SO/AC .Stress Test 18 and Carve-Out gave already negatively and adversely affected GAC. GNSO needs to take a more positive and faire attitude vis a vis GAC. Regrads Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Mar 2016, at 19:46, Julie Hedlund via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear PDP WG members,
Please see below the actions captured by staff from today’s meeting and let us know if you have comments, changes, or questions. Note that a transcript and MP3 also will be available.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director * * *Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 28 March 2016*
/1. Work Tracks 3, 4, 5/
_Track 3 -- String Contention, Objections, Disputes_
Clarifying Questions: a. Kavouss Arasteh: Do we have a checklist of all those problems/difficulties with respect to similarity/singular v. plural so that someone could update it?
Answer (Jeff Neuman) — It would be very valuable to produce a list of the singular v. plural, as well as group names with similar meaning. In response to Paul McGrady's note -- there were initial evaluations and objections -- should user confusion in a trademark sense be part of an initial application/evaluation, or as part of an objection? If in the initital evaluation what factors would go into that evaluation?
*Action Item*: Produce a list of the singular v. plural, as well as group names with similar meaning.
b. Alan Greenberg: Re: Level playing fields: How much emphasis should be made on this issue? Have we decided if this is problematic.
Answer (Jeff Neuman) — This is an overall issue. Same with safeguards. No decisions have been made at this point.
*Action Items:* Look at all the objections that were filed, how they turned out, consistency. Check to see if the CCT Review Team may be doing this. Look at the role of the independent objector.
c. Kavouss Arasteh: Who is authorized to raise a question or objection based on the public interest? Should we have some type of rationale? Do we also accept political objections?
Answer (Jeff Neuman): In 2012 anyone was entitled to file a public interest objection, but it did cost money. The grounds for the objection were in the Applicant Guidebook. There was a process to ensure that the claim had some merit. There was no formal objection ground for political objections, but the GAC or governments could file early warnings. The GAC could always provide advice during the process.
*Discussion Notes: * Paul McGrady: Look very carefully at the GAC's role and how that played out in the first round. Ken Stubbs: Develop a process and methodologies for dealing with objections to avoid them dragging out. Greg Shatan: Re: consistency of outcomes -- we need to look at these things as processes and how this relates to the auction process. Jeff Neuman: Include in this track contention resolution aspects, such as auctions, indirect contentions, etc. Jay Westerdal: Some of the issues may take a year or two longer to resolve. Jeff Neuman: Not sure how we can have an impact on the previous round. Falls into how we stick to the principle that we are not advantaging/disadvantaging previous versus future applicants.
_Track 4: Internationalized Domain Names_
Clarifying Questions: Paul McGrady: How far are we allowed to go with respect to encouraging adoption of internationalized domain names? Can we recommend that ICANN lower the cost on IDNs? Answer (Jeff Neuman) — It might be that we could discuss issues -- but not exact pricing -- that in theory that you could have a recommendation that ICANN should have a subsidy, or that ICANN should encourage.
_Track 5: Technical & Operations_
Clarifying Questions: Alan Greenberg: We should be getting a report on whether the questions on the accreditation process met the needs or should they be changed. Answer (Jeff Neuman) — I think ICANN staff have said they want to participate in this PDP WG. They should be active members and listed on the wiki page.
*Discussion Notes:* Mary Wong: Note that the WG could ask for answers from staff for specific questions. Alan Greenberg: I think we want something written from them, but much of this is implementation so it is not clear how deep we need to get into it. Jeff Neuman: It might be in the implementation report that they did. See: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/implementation/program-review-29jan16-.... Also the comments on the report: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-draft-review-23sep15/. Avri Doria: We should make sure we look at relates to the original policy that the GNSO came out with that all registry requirements don't need to be the same. Jeff Neuman: I could see that as a good issue for track 5.
*Action Items:* PDP WG support staff will take the action to add staff to the WG member list on the wiki. The PDP WG will direct specific questions to staff as needed.
/3. Letter from Steve Crocker/
*Discussion Notes:* Jeff Neuman: I do think that the creation of yet another group to look at these questions would create a lot of overlap. I think these questions are captured in the issues we have laid out and if not we should make sure they are in there. We could respond to the Board by thanking them and that these are issues that are properly for the GNSO to consider. Alan Greenberg: We can say, "noted" and the items are in our work list. Steve Coates: General consensus is that this is a good letter. It seems that a short response is necessary and appropriate. Any questions with that approach? Alan Greenberg: And we will coordinate with the CCT Review Team. Jeff Neuman: Amr notes that these issues were brought up about the 2012 round in Marrakech. We should make it clear that our jurisdiction is only over subsequent procedures, not current TLDs. Alan Greenberg: There is no intent in the current ALAC advice to fix problems with the current round.
*Action Item*: Staff will assist in drafting a brief response to the Board.
/4. Liaisons from SOs/Acs/
*Discussion Notes:* It would be up to the SO and AC. They would not have special status in this WG, except for the GNSO Liaison. They may have liaison status in their groups. May be useful perhaps with the GAC, if they feel the need.
5. /Next Meeting: /Monday, 04 April at 2200 UTC.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Thank We are on the same wave length And hope the co- chairs keep this group politically free and just professional in place Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 29 Mar 2016, at 16:15, avri doria via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi,
The political issues regarding Advisory Committees and Accountability changes are not part of our charter. I would ask people to keep the discussions on this list to subsequent procedures that fall within the defined constructs of ICANN organization.
To respond to your request Kavouss: it is not the business of this group to deal with the decreasing or degrading anyone's role in subsequent procedures, whether it turns out to be rounds or some other set of procedures.
I fully endorse the goal of ever improved working relationship between the GAC and the GNSO. I am happy to see members of the GAC participating in this WG.
Thanks for your note.
avri
On 29-Mar-16 04:14, Kavouss Arasteh via Gnso-newgtld-wg wrote: Dear Co-Chairs Please kindly be informed that the outcome of this WG shall in no way decrease or degrade the Role if GAC in the new round if gTLD . In other words GAC preserves and maintains its rights as previously contained in AGB. GAC expect from this process improvements and NOT losing any right it already practiced. I am aware of the good? Relation between GNSO and GAC which was highly demonstrated in CCWG by GNSO people which resulted GAC losing some if its current power( read testimony of Some GBSO colleagues before the House sub- committee. I hope we will not end up further division and polarisation and even discrimination in treating SO/AC .Stress Test 18 and Carve-Out gave already negatively and adversely affected GAC. GNSO needs to take a more positive and faire attitude vis a vis GAC. Regrads Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Mar 2016, at 19:46, Julie Hedlund via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear PDP WG members,
Please see below the actions captured by staff from today’s meeting and let us know if you have comments, changes, or questions. Note that a transcript and MP3 also will be available.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director * * *Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 28 March 2016*
/1. Work Tracks 3, 4, 5/
_Track 3 -- String Contention, Objections, Disputes_
Clarifying Questions: a. Kavouss Arasteh: Do we have a checklist of all those problems/difficulties with respect to similarity/singular v. plural so that someone could update it?
Answer (Jeff Neuman) — It would be very valuable to produce a list of the singular v. plural, as well as group names with similar meaning. In response to Paul McGrady's note -- there were initial evaluations and objections -- should user confusion in a trademark sense be part of an initial application/evaluation, or as part of an objection? If in the initital evaluation what factors would go into that evaluation?
*Action Item*: Produce a list of the singular v. plural, as well as group names with similar meaning.
b. Alan Greenberg: Re: Level playing fields: How much emphasis should be made on this issue? Have we decided if this is problematic.
Answer (Jeff Neuman) — This is an overall issue. Same with safeguards. No decisions have been made at this point.
*Action Items:* Look at all the objections that were filed, how they turned out, consistency. Check to see if the CCT Review Team may be doing this. Look at the role of the independent objector.
c. Kavouss Arasteh: Who is authorized to raise a question or objection based on the public interest? Should we have some type of rationale? Do we also accept political objections?
Answer (Jeff Neuman): In 2012 anyone was entitled to file a public interest objection, but it did cost money. The grounds for the objection were in the Applicant Guidebook. There was a process to ensure that the claim had some merit. There was no formal objection ground for political objections, but the GAC or governments could file early warnings. The GAC could always provide advice during the process.
*Discussion Notes: * Paul McGrady: Look very carefully at the GAC's role and how that played out in the first round. Ken Stubbs: Develop a process and methodologies for dealing with objections to avoid them dragging out. Greg Shatan: Re: consistency of outcomes -- we need to look at these things as processes and how this relates to the auction process. Jeff Neuman: Include in this track contention resolution aspects, such as auctions, indirect contentions, etc. Jay Westerdal: Some of the issues may take a year or two longer to resolve. Jeff Neuman: Not sure how we can have an impact on the previous round. Falls into how we stick to the principle that we are not advantaging/disadvantaging previous versus future applicants.
_Track 4: Internationalized Domain Names_
Clarifying Questions: Paul McGrady: How far are we allowed to go with respect to encouraging adoption of internationalized domain names? Can we recommend that ICANN lower the cost on IDNs? Answer (Jeff Neuman) — It might be that we could discuss issues -- but not exact pricing -- that in theory that you could have a recommendation that ICANN should have a subsidy, or that ICANN should encourage.
_Track 5: Technical & Operations_
Clarifying Questions: Alan Greenberg: We should be getting a report on whether the questions on the accreditation process met the needs or should they be changed. Answer (Jeff Neuman) — I think ICANN staff have said they want to participate in this PDP WG. They should be active members and listed on the wiki page.
*Discussion Notes:* Mary Wong: Note that the WG could ask for answers from staff for specific questions. Alan Greenberg: I think we want something written from them, but much of this is implementation so it is not clear how deep we need to get into it. Jeff Neuman: It might be in the implementation report that they did. See: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/implementation/program-review-29jan16-.... Also the comments on the report: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-draft-review-23sep15/. Avri Doria: We should make sure we look at relates to the original policy that the GNSO came out with that all registry requirements don't need to be the same. Jeff Neuman: I could see that as a good issue for track 5.
*Action Items:* PDP WG support staff will take the action to add staff to the WG member list on the wiki. The PDP WG will direct specific questions to staff as needed.
/3. Letter from Steve Crocker/
*Discussion Notes:* Jeff Neuman: I do think that the creation of yet another group to look at these questions would create a lot of overlap. I think these questions are captured in the issues we have laid out and if not we should make sure they are in there. We could respond to the Board by thanking them and that these are issues that are properly for the GNSO to consider. Alan Greenberg: We can say, "noted" and the items are in our work list. Steve Coates: General consensus is that this is a good letter. It seems that a short response is necessary and appropriate. Any questions with that approach? Alan Greenberg: And we will coordinate with the CCT Review Team. Jeff Neuman: Amr notes that these issues were brought up about the 2012 round in Marrakech. We should make it clear that our jurisdiction is only over subsequent procedures, not current TLDs. Alan Greenberg: There is no intent in the current ALAC advice to fix problems with the current round.
*Action Item*: Staff will assist in drafting a brief response to the Board.
/4. Liaisons from SOs/Acs/
*Discussion Notes:* It would be up to the SO and AC. They would not have special status in this WG, except for the GNSO Liaison. They may have liaison status in their groups. May be useful perhaps with the GAC, if they feel the need.
5. /Next Meeting: /Monday, 04 April at 2200 UTC.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Em 29 de mar de 2016, à(s) 05:14:000, Kavouss Arasteh via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> escreveu:
Dear Co-Chairs Please kindly be informed that the outcome of this WG shall in no way decrease or degrade the Role if GAC in the new round if gTLD . In other words GAC preserves and maintains its rights as previously contained in AGB. GAC expect from this process improvements and NOT losing any right it already practiced. I am aware of the good? Relation between GNSO and GAC which was highly demonstrated in CCWG by GNSO people which resulted GAC losing some if its current power( read testimony of Some GBSO colleagues before the House sub- committee. I hope we will not end up further division and polarisation and even discrimination in treating SO/AC .Stress Test 18 and Carve-Out gave already negatively and adversely affected GAC. GNSO needs to take a more positive and faire attitude vis a vis GAC. Regrads Kavouss
Kavouss, On a general note that might considered by Work Track 3, GAC might want to look at whether some mechanisms didn't achieve process efficiency and thus would be better if scraped. For instance, GAC Early Warning was not that much useful for both governments and applicants, since very little application changes/withdrawals came out of it, and governments could still raise either GAC (consensus) advice or individual concerns. GAC EW was also of little use to applicants as well, since most discussions took longer than the deadline for 80% refund. The point here is not whether to make the change I mentioned, which would be a premature discussion, but for GAC to be open to changes where no impact or a better outcome is achieved even though something with the label "GAC" is removed. Rubens
Dear Ruben Thank you very much for your wise advice . In fact when I asked that ICANN be formally asked to provide a detailed report on all shortcomings,deficiencies, difficulties and also suggesting ways and means to improve and /or remedy those problem I gad exactly the same views as you described. When I proposed a focal point / Liaison to GAC was exactly to formally asked them to inform us of the effectiveness of EW and also of problem they faced in the implementation of the first round. I am still of the view that such Liaison is quite useful. We need to work together and push the things in the right direction Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 29 Mar 2016, at 18:04, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Em 29 de mar de 2016, à(s) 05:14:000, Kavouss Arasteh via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> escreveu:
Dear Co-Chairs Please kindly be informed that the outcome of this WG shall in no way decrease or degrade the Role if GAC in the new round if gTLD . In other words GAC preserves and maintains its rights as previously contained in AGB. GAC expect from this process improvements and NOT losing any right it already practiced. I am aware of the good? Relation between GNSO and GAC which was highly demonstrated in CCWG by GNSO people which resulted GAC losing some if its current power( read testimony of Some GBSO colleagues before the House sub- committee. I hope we will not end up further division and polarisation and even discrimination in treating SO/AC .Stress Test 18 and Carve-Out gave already negatively and adversely affected GAC. GNSO needs to take a more positive and faire attitude vis a vis GAC. Regrads Kavouss
Kavouss,
On a general note that might considered by Work Track 3, GAC might want to look at whether some mechanisms didn't achieve process efficiency and thus would be better if scraped. For instance, GAC Early Warning was not that much useful for both governments and applicants, since very little application changes/withdrawals came out of it, and governments could still raise either GAC (consensus) advice or individual concerns. GAC EW was also of little use to applicants as well, since most discussions took longer than the deadline for 80% refund.
The point here is not whether to make the change I mentioned, which would be a premature discussion, but for GAC to be open to changes where no impact or a better outcome is achieved even though something with the label "GAC" is removed.
Rubens
participants (5)
-
avri doria -
Julie Hedlund -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Ken Stubbs -
Rubens Kuhl