Hey Anne I do not believe that all informal objection is weighted equally (or at the level of formal objection) – at least that was our experience in the 2012 round – therefore not all informal objection necessarily invokes an application change request. That said, I do see opportunities where informal objection may invoke an application change request, such as in CPE to address a “letter of objection” targeting points in criteria 4. It has been my understanding that any application change request that extends beyond administrative adjustments to an application goes out for public comment – which I believe is the catch net to address your concerns below. I have never assumed that change requests stemming from informal objection are exempt from public comment. Do I understand that correctly? Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 5:07 PM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Yes – Jamie – that would be my understanding. The question posed relates to the fact that the later paragraph says that RVCs developed in response to a “formal objection” invoke an application change request and require public comment. I hope we have not inadvertently created an exception to this requirement in relation to RVCs adopted in response to an “informal” objection. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:29 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne My interpretation of “formal objection” would be those that are paid for via a dispute resolution provider, not to be confused with any other objection expressed in public comment or other format, including the ICANN correspondence page. Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 4:19 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 On Package 6, please see below: 1. re 2.6.1 re “Application Queuing”, the language shown below should be modified because the previous section is drafted as “more than 125” and the section below is drafted as “less than 125”. Language should be revised does not cover what happens if you get exactly 125 IDN applications: * If there are (delete “less than”) 125 or fewer applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be assigned priority numbersprocessed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application. 2. Section 2.8.1 – Objections I don’t understand why we would remove affirmations of Recommendation 2 and Recommendation 3 from this section. The fact that these Affirmations are affirmed elsewhere in the report does not change their relevance in relation to the subject of Objections. Please clarify whether these Affirmations are “in” or “out.” They don’t appear to be deleted but there are comments on the side saying they should be. Recommendation xx (rationale 3) Throughout this rationale, the word, “formal” has been inserted in front of the word, “objection”. What is the meaning/need for the insertion of “formal” before “objection”? Is there a thought that there are “informal” objection processes? This language also appears in Rationale 6 and there are NUMEROUS insertions of this reference in the Section on Deliberations. Is there some intended effect here with respect to Subsection d. which specifies that a change in Registry Voluntary Commitments that is made in response to a “formal objection” invokes an application change process? Is the idea that if there are RVCs that are agreed OUTSIDE the “formal objection” process (i.e. via an “informal” objection), those RVCs are somehow NOT subject to an application change process and related public comment? I thought we had established that all new RVCs need to be subject to an application change process and public comment. 3. Section 2.9.1 Community Applications – Subsection c. “New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable.” Thanks for deleting the reference to the conclusion that the IRT should be the body that determines any needed changes to the CPE Guidelines. However, what was discussed when the “can’t live with” comments were reviewed is that there is a need to specify that the WG is seeking public comment on the CPE Guidelines. We should be specifying at this point in the text that we are seeking that comment and we should provide the link at this same point in the text so that we call attention to the request for public comment on the CPE Guidelines (but not the scoring.) Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 10:44 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear all, The following are now available for your review in the production document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...>. The deadline for comments is Wednesday 15 July at 23:59 UTC. 1. Package 7 sections of the Report are now ready for “Can’t Live With” review (beginning on page 148<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...>): · Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. · Package 7 includes two report sections: · 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed on 11 June<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...>) - For this section, please limit “Can’t Live With” comments to the new text in the section, which is displayed in black. The text in grey has already gone through “Can’t Live With” review as part of an earlier package. · 2.3.2 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) / Public Interest Commitments (PICs) (last discussed on 18 June<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...>) · Comments will be tracked here<https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw>. 1. Package 6 revisions of the report, now ready for a final check (beginning on page 118<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...>): · Please limit feedback to errors in the edits, for example a revision that you believe does not accurately reflect the outcome of discussions about a “Can’t Live With” item. · Please send this type of feedback to the mailing list. Typo corrections can be sent directly to staff. · For package 6 sections, please do not raise new issues, introduce new “Can’t Live With” items, or re-open deliberations. · A high-level summary of the “Can’t Live With” input received is available here<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report>. And a detailed log with the outcomes from the WG’s consideration of that input is available here<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1blgQjzh_vR7WQ1utsqBnHDb8_b2DD7IDQu-b...>. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ 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.

My take is that unless the RVC is already filed in the application, when it will be subject by comments as all applications, will trigger application change request which includes public comments. Why would that not be so ? Rubens

On 15 Jul 2020, at 18:38, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:

Thanks Jamie. I’m looking for the language in the draft Final Report that confirms your understanding. As mentioned below, Subsection d. has some added language stating that RVCs adopted in response to “concerns raised in a formal objection” will be considered application changes.

Maybe Jeff or staff can advise where we would find that RVCs adopted in response to concerns expressed by a party that has not yet filed such “formal objection” would also be subject to application change request and public comment. (It may be in the section on Registry Voluntary Commitments”, but I am just looking for confirmation that all RVCs, regardless of the stage in which they are proposed to address concerns, trigger application change request procedures and public comment on the RVCs. Anne

From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com <mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:34 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6

[EXTERNAL] Hey Anne

I do not believe that all informal objection is weighted equally (or at the level of formal objection) – at least that was our experience in the 2012 round – therefore not all informal objection necessarily invokes an application change request. That said, I do see opportunities where informal objection may invoke an application change request, such as in CPE to address a “letter of objection” targeting points in criteria 4.

It has been my understanding that any application change request that extends beyond administrative adjustments to an application goes out for public comment – which I believe is the catch net to address your concerns below. I have never assumed that change requests stemming from informal objection are exempt from public comment. Do I understand that correctly?

Jamie

From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 5:07 PM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com <mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6

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

From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com <mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:29 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6

[EXTERNAL] Hey Anne

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

Jamie

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 4:19 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6

On Package 6, please see below:

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

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

2. Section 2.8.1 – Objections I don’t understand why we would remove affirmations of Recommendation 2 and Recommendation 3 from this section. The fact that these Affirmations are affirmed elsewhere in the report does not change their relevance in relation to the subject of Objections. Please clarify whether these Affirmations are “in” or “out.” They don’t appear to be deleted but there are comments on the side saying they should be.

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

3. Section 2.9.1 Community Applications – Subsection c. “New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable.” Thanks for deleting the reference to the conclusion that the IRT should be the body that determines any needed changes to the CPE Guidelines. However, what was discussed when the “can’t live with” comments were reviewed is that there is a need to specify that the WG is seeking public comment on the CPE Guidelines. We should be specifying at this point in the text that we are seeking that comment and we should provide the link at this same point in the text so that we call attention to the request for public comment on the CPE Guidelines (but not the scoring.)

Thank you, Anne

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 10:44 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6

[EXTERNAL] Dear all,

The following are now available for your review in the production document <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...>. The deadline for comments is Wednesday 15 July at 23:59 UTC. Package 7 sections of the Report are now ready for “Can’t Live With” review (beginning on page 148 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...>): Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. Package 7 includes two report sections: 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed on 11 June <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...>) - For this section, please limit “Can’t Live With” comments to the new text in the section, which is displayed in black. The text in grey has already gone through “Can’t Live With” review as part of an earlier package. 2.3.2 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) / Public Interest Commitments (PICs) (last discussed on 18 June <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...>) Comments will be tracked here <https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw>.

Package 6 revisions of the report, now ready for a final check (beginning on page 118 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...>): Please limit feedback to errors in the edits, for example a revision that you believe does not accurately reflect the outcome of discussions about a “Can’t Live With” item. Please send this type of feedback to the mailing list. Typo corrections can be sent directly to staff. For package 6 sections, please do not raise new issues, introduce new “Can’t Live With” items, or re-open deliberations. A high-level summary of the “Can’t Live With” input received is available here <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report>. And a detailed log with the outcomes from the WG’s consideration of that input is available here <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1blgQjzh_vR7WQ1utsqBnHDb8_b2DD7IDQu-b...>. Kind regards, Emily

Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/>

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

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.

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. _______________________________________________ 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.

Section 2.3.2 on RVCs and PICs says in Recommendation xx (Rationale 4) that ICANN MUST allow RVCs to be added after the application submission date in order to respond to public comments, objection, GAC Early Warnings, and/or GAC Consensus Advice. So obviously RVCs can be adopted in a context other than “formal objection”. That section then refers us to the Application Change Request section. Thus, in Section 2.4 Application Change Requests, it appears we may have to amend the following language in a. Recommendation xx (rationale 2): ICANN org must document the types of changes which are required to be posted for public comment and which are not required to be posted for public comment. The following is a non-exhaustive list of changes that must require public comment: · The addition of Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections (whether formal or informal), GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings · Changes to Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections, GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings · Changes associated with the formation of joint ventures (see Recommendation xx below) From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:53 PM To: 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk@nic.br>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Right Rubens – just looking for the language that confirms that because the section on Objections now says in d. that this applies where RVCs are adopted in response to concerns raised in a FORMAL objection. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:49 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 My take is that unless the RVC is already filed in the application, when it will be subject by comments as all applications, will trigger application change request which includes public comments. Why would that not be so ? Rubens On 15 Jul 2020, at 18:38, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Thanks Jamie. I’m looking for the language in the draft Final Report that confirms your understanding. As mentioned below, Subsection d. has some added language stating that RVCs adopted in response to “concerns raised in a formal objection” will be considered application changes. Maybe Jeff or staff can advise where we would find that RVCs adopted in response to concerns expressed by a party that has not yet filed such “formal objection” would also be subject to application change request and public comment. (It may be in the section on Registry Voluntary Commitments”, but I am just looking for confirmation that all RVCs, regardless of the stage in which they are proposed to address concerns, trigger application change request procedures and public comment on the RVCs. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:34 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne I do not believe that all informal objection is weighted equally (or at the level of formal objection) – at least that was our experience in the 2012 round – therefore not all informal objection necessarily invokes an application change request. That said, I do see opportunities where informal objection may invoke an application change request, such as in CPE to address a “letter of objection” targeting points in criteria 4. It has been my understanding that any application change request that extends beyond administrative adjustments to an application goes out for public comment – which I believe is the catch net to address your concerns below. I have never assumed that change requests stemming from informal objection are exempt from public comment. Do I understand that correctly? Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 5:07 PM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Yes – Jamie – that would be my understanding. The question posed relates to the fact that the later paragraph says that RVCs developed in response to a “formal objection” invoke an application change request and require public comment. I hope we have not inadvertently created an exception to this requirement in relation to RVCs adopted in response to an “informal” objection. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:29 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne My interpretation of “formal objection” would be those that are paid for via a dispute resolution provider, not to be confused with any other objection expressed in public comment or other format, including the ICANN correspondence page. Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 4:19 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 On Package 6, please see below: 1. re 2.6.1 re “Application Queuing”, the language shown below should be modified because the previous section is drafted as “more than 125” and the section below is drafted as “less than 125”. Language should be revised does not cover what happens if you get exactly 125 IDN applications: * If there are (delete “less than”) 125 or fewer applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be assigned priority numbersprocessed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application. 2. Section 2.8.1 – Objections I don’t understand why we would remove affirmations of Recommendation 2 and Recommendation 3 from this section. The fact that these Affirmations are affirmed elsewhere in the report does not change their relevance in relation to the subject of Objections. Please clarify whether these Affirmations are “in” or “out.” They don’t appear to be deleted but there are comments on the side saying they should be. Recommendation xx (rationale 3) Throughout this rationale, the word, “formal” has been inserted in front of the word, “objection”. What is the meaning/need for the insertion of “formal” before “objection”? Is there a thought that there are “informal” objection processes? This language also appears in Rationale 6 and there are NUMEROUS insertions of this reference in the Section on Deliberations. Is there some intended effect here with respect to Subsection d. which specifies that a change in Registry Voluntary Commitments that is made in response to a “formal objection” invokes an application change process? Is the idea that if there are RVCs that are agreed OUTSIDE the “formal objection” process (i.e. via an “informal” objection), those RVCs are somehow NOT subject to an application change process and related public comment? I thought we had established that all new RVCs need to be subject to an application change process and public comment. 3. Section 2.9.1 Community Applications – Subsection c. “New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable.” Thanks for deleting the reference to the conclusion that the IRT should be the body that determines any needed changes to the CPE Guidelines. However, what was discussed when the “can’t live with” comments were reviewed is that there is a need to specify that the WG is seeking public comment on the CPE Guidelines. We should be specifying at this point in the text that we are seeking that comment and we should provide the link at this same point in the text so that we call attention to the request for public comment on the CPE Guidelines (but not the scoring.) Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 10:44 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear all, The following are now available for your review in the production document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...>. The deadline for comments is Wednesday 15 July at 23:59 UTC. 1. Package 7 sections of the Report are now ready for “Can’t Live With” review (beginning on page 148<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...>): * Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. * Package 7 includes two report sections: * 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed on 11 June<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...>) - For this section, please limit “Can’t Live With” comments to the new text in the section, which is displayed in black. The text in grey has already gone through “Can’t Live With” review as part of an earlier package. * 2.3.2 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) / Public Interest Commitments (PICs) (last discussed on 18 June<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...>) * Comments will be tracked here<https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw>. 1. Package 6 revisions of the report, now ready for a final check (beginning on page 118<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...>): * Please limit feedback to errors in the edits, for example a revision that you believe does not accurately reflect the outcome of discussions about a “Can’t Live With” item. * Please send this type of feedback to the mailing list. Typo corrections can be sent directly to staff. * For package 6 sections, please do not raise new issues, introduce new “Can’t Live With” items, or re-open deliberations. * A high-level summary of the “Can’t Live With” input received is available here<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report>. And a detailed log with the outcomes from the WG’s consideration of that input is available here<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1blgQjzh_vR7WQ1utsqBnHDb8_b2DD7IDQu-b...>. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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.

Dear Anne, Jamie, all, Catching up on email now. The request to change the phrasing to “formal objection” came from Kathy Kleiman I believe, with the intention to make it consistent with the Applicant Guidebook. Jamie is correct that the terminology of “formal objection“ is to draw contrast with application comment (as well as with GAC Early Warnings). He’s also correct in stating that the word “formal” is only to draw contrast and that “informal objection” is not a specific term in the Applicant Guidebook. In section 2.3.2 on Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) / Public Interest Commitments (PICs), one of the recommendations notes (with my emphasis added), “Applicants must be able to submit RVCs at any time prior to the execution of a Registry Agreement; provided, however, that all RVCs submitted after the application submission date shall be considered Application Changes and be subject to the recommendation set forth in Section xx Application Changes Requests, including, but not limited to, public comment in accordance with ICANN’s standard procedures and timeframes.” This language would indicate that all RVCs shall be treated as Application Changes, so no loophole seems to have been created. I would add that section (d) of each section is devoted to dependencies and relationships with other areas of the report, thus the reference in section 2.8.1 on Objections is only to help the reader help understand how various sections may be interrelated. The text in the primary section, in this case section 2.3.2, should be considered as controlling. Hope this helps and please let me know if I might have missed some components in the email traffic. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 4:01 PM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Hey Anne I would venture to argue that informal objection is technically “public comment.” I do not support creating an undefined category of application input/intervention called “informal objection” that has no specific rules or timeline for submission. This does not add transparency to the process or predictability for applicants. Public comment and formal objections already have clearly defined rules and timelines. I continue to believe it was a miscarriage of the AGB to allow “letters of opposition” (a.k.a informal objection) to be accepted years after the public comment period was closed and the formal objection period was complete. There was certainly no reference in the AGB that this would be allowed or acceptable. It was ultimately a successful gaming tactic used against community applicants. Community applicants deserve the same level of predictability as all other applicants. Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 6:21 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Section 2.3.2 on RVCs and PICs says in Recommendation xx (Rationale 4) that ICANN MUST allow RVCs to be added after the application submission date in order to respond to public comments, objection, GAC Early Warnings, and/or GAC Consensus Advice. So obviously RVCs can be adopted in a context other than “formal objection”. That section then refers us to the Application Change Request section. Thus, in Section 2.4 Application Change Requests, it appears we may have to amend the following language in a. Recommendation xx (rationale 2): ICANN org must document the types of changes which are required to be posted for public comment and which are not required to be posted for public comment. The following is a non-exhaustive list of changes that must require public comment: The addition of Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections (whether formal or informal), GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings Changes to Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections, GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings Changes associated with the formation of joint ventures (see Recommendation xx below) From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:53 PM To: 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk@nic.br>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Right Rubens – just looking for the language that confirms that because the section on Objections now says in d. that this applies where RVCs are adopted in response to concerns raised in a FORMAL objection. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:49 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 My take is that unless the RVC is already filed in the application, when it will be subject by comments as all applications, will trigger application change request which includes public comments. Why would that not be so ? Rubens On 15 Jul 2020, at 18:38, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote: Thanks Jamie. I’m looking for the language in the draft Final Report that confirms your understanding. As mentioned below, Subsection d. has some added language stating that RVCs adopted in response to “concerns raised in a formal objection” will be considered application changes. Maybe Jeff or staff can advise where we would find that RVCs adopted in response to concerns expressed by a party that has not yet filed such “formal objection” would also be subject to application change request and public comment. (It may be in the section on Registry Voluntary Commitments”, but I am just looking for confirmation that all RVCs, regardless of the stage in which they are proposed to address concerns, trigger application change request procedures and public comment on the RVCs. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:34 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne I do not believe that all informal objection is weighted equally (or at the level of formal objection) – at least that was our experience in the 2012 round – therefore not all informal objection necessarily invokes an application change request. That said, I do see opportunities where informal objection may invoke an application change request, such as in CPE to address a “letter of objection” targeting points in criteria 4. It has been my understanding that any application change request that extends beyond administrative adjustments to an application goes out for public comment – which I believe is the catch net to address your concerns below. I have never assumed that change requests stemming from informal objection are exempt from public comment. Do I understand that correctly? Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 5:07 PM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Yes – Jamie – that would be my understanding. The question posed relates to the fact that the later paragraph says that RVCs developed in response to a “formal objection” invoke an application change request and require public comment. I hope we have not inadvertently created an exception to this requirement in relation to RVCs adopted in response to an “informal” objection. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:29 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne My interpretation of “formal objection” would be those that are paid for via a dispute resolution provider, not to be confused with any other objection expressed in public comment or other format, including the ICANN correspondence page. Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 4:19 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 On Package 6, please see below: 1. re 2.6.1 re “Application Queuing”, the language shown below should be modified because the previous section is drafted as “more than 125” and the section below is drafted as “less than 125”. Language should be revised does not cover what happens if you get exactly 125 IDN applications: If there are (delete “less than”) 125 or fewer applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be assigned priority numbersprocessed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application. 2. Section 2.8.1 – Objections I don’t understand why we would remove affirmations of Recommendation 2 and Recommendation 3 from this section. The fact that these Affirmations are affirmed elsewhere in the report does not change their relevance in relation to the subject of Objections. Please clarify whether these Affirmations are “in” or “out.” They don’t appear to be deleted but there are comments on the side saying they should be. Recommendation xx (rationale 3) Throughout this rationale, the word, “formal” has been inserted in front of the word, “objection”. What is the meaning/need for the insertion of “formal” before “objection”? Is there a thought that there are “informal” objection processes? This language also appears in Rationale 6 and there are NUMEROUS insertions of this reference in the Section on Deliberations. Is there some intended effect here with respect to Subsection d. which specifies that a change in Registry Voluntary Commitments that is made in response to a “formal objection” invokes an application change process? Is the idea that if there are RVCs that are agreed OUTSIDE the “formal objection” process (i.e. via an “informal” objection), those RVCs are somehow NOT subject to an application change process and related public comment? I thought we had established that all new RVCs need to be subject to an application change process and public comment. 3. Section 2.9.1 Community Applications – Subsection c. “New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable.” Thanks for deleting the reference to the conclusion that the IRT should be the body that determines any needed changes to the CPE Guidelines. However, what was discussed when the “can’t live with” comments were reviewed is that there is a need to specify that the WG is seeking public comment on the CPE Guidelines. We should be specifying at this point in the text that we are seeking that comment and we should provide the link at this same point in the text so that we call attention to the request for public comment on the CPE Guidelines (but not the scoring.) Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 10:44 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] Dear all, The following are now available for your review in the production document. The deadline for comments is Wednesday 15 July at 23:59 UTC. Package 7 sections of the Report are now ready for “Can’t Live With” review (beginning on page 148): Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. Package 7 includes two report sections: 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed on 11 June) - For this section, please limit “Can’t Live With” comments to the new text in the section, which is displayed in black. The text in grey has already gone through “Can’t Live With” review as part of an earlier package. 2.3.2 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) / Public Interest Commitments (PICs) (last discussed on 18 June) Comments will be tracked here. Package 6 revisions of the report, now ready for a final check (beginning on page 118): Please limit feedback to errors in the edits, for example a revision that you believe does not accurately reflect the outcome of discussions about a “Can’t Live With” item. Please send this type of feedback to the mailing list. Typo corrections can be sent directly to staff. For package 6 sections, please do not raise new issues, introduce new “Can’t Live With” items, or re-open deliberations. A high-level summary of the “Can’t Live With” input received is available here. And a detailed log with the outcomes from the WG’s consideration of that input is available here. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. 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. 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. _______________________________________________ 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. 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.

Hi Jamie – I think transparency is the issue. If the new language says that RVCs that are adopted in response to a “formal” objection require public comment, then that language, in and of itself, creates a category of objection that is “not formal”. That could easily be a call or a letter from some party that says, “If you don’t adopt the following RVC, we are going to file an objection.” In that case, the RVC that is adopted should also be subject to an Application Change Request and public comment. A private “threat” like that would not be a matter of public comment. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 4:01 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne I would venture to argue that informal objection is technically “public comment.” I do not support creating an undefined category of application input/intervention called “informal objection” that has no specific rules or timeline for submission. This does not add transparency to the process or predictability for applicants. Public comment and formal objections already have clearly defined rules and timelines. I continue to believe it was a miscarriage of the AGB to allow “letters of opposition” (a.k.a informal objection) to be accepted years after the public comment period was closed and the formal objection period was complete. There was certainly no reference in the AGB that this would be allowed or acceptable. It was ultimately a successful gaming tactic used against community applicants. Community applicants deserve the same level of predictability as all other applicants. Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 6:21 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Section 2.3.2 on RVCs and PICs says in Recommendation xx (Rationale 4) that ICANN MUST allow RVCs to be added after the application submission date in order to respond to public comments, objection, GAC Early Warnings, and/or GAC Consensus Advice. So obviously RVCs can be adopted in a context other than “formal objection”. That section then refers us to the Application Change Request section. Thus, in Section 2.4 Application Change Requests, it appears we may have to amend the following language in a. Recommendation xx (rationale 2): ICANN org must document the types of changes which are required to be posted for public comment and which are not required to be posted for public comment. The following is a non-exhaustive list of changes that must require public comment: * The addition of Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections (whether formal or informal), GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings * Changes to Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections, GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings * Changes associated with the formation of joint ventures (see Recommendation xx below) From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:53 PM To: 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Right Rubens – just looking for the language that confirms that because the section on Objections now says in d. that this applies where RVCs are adopted in response to concerns raised in a FORMAL objection. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:49 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 My take is that unless the RVC is already filed in the application, when it will be subject by comments as all applications, will trigger application change request which includes public comments. Why would that not be so ? Rubens On 15 Jul 2020, at 18:38, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Thanks Jamie. I’m looking for the language in the draft Final Report that confirms your understanding. As mentioned below, Subsection d. has some added language stating that RVCs adopted in response to “concerns raised in a formal objection” will be considered application changes. Maybe Jeff or staff can advise where we would find that RVCs adopted in response to concerns expressed by a party that has not yet filed such “formal objection” would also be subject to application change request and public comment. (It may be in the section on Registry Voluntary Commitments”, but I am just looking for confirmation that all RVCs, regardless of the stage in which they are proposed to address concerns, trigger application change request procedures and public comment on the RVCs. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:34 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne I do not believe that all informal objection is weighted equally (or at the level of formal objection) – at least that was our experience in the 2012 round – therefore not all informal objection necessarily invokes an application change request. That said, I do see opportunities where informal objection may invoke an application change request, such as in CPE to address a “letter of objection” targeting points in criteria 4. It has been my understanding that any application change request that extends beyond administrative adjustments to an application goes out for public comment – which I believe is the catch net to address your concerns below. I have never assumed that change requests stemming from informal objection are exempt from public comment. Do I understand that correctly? Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 5:07 PM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Yes – Jamie – that would be my understanding. The question posed relates to the fact that the later paragraph says that RVCs developed in response to a “formal objection” invoke an application change request and require public comment. I hope we have not inadvertently created an exception to this requirement in relation to RVCs adopted in response to an “informal” objection. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:29 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne My interpretation of “formal objection” would be those that are paid for via a dispute resolution provider, not to be confused with any other objection expressed in public comment or other format, including the ICANN correspondence page. Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 4:19 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 On Package 6, please see below: 1. re 2.6.1 re “Application Queuing”, the language shown below should be modified because the previous section is drafted as “more than 125” and the section below is drafted as “less than 125”. Language should be revised does not cover what happens if you get exactly 125 IDN applications: * If there are (delete “less than”) 125 or fewer applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be assigned priority numbersprocessed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application. 2. Section 2.8.1 – Objections I don’t understand why we would remove affirmations of Recommendation 2 and Recommendation 3 from this section. The fact that these Affirmations are affirmed elsewhere in the report does not change their relevance in relation to the subject of Objections. Please clarify whether these Affirmations are “in” or “out.” They don’t appear to be deleted but there are comments on the side saying they should be. Recommendation xx (rationale 3) Throughout this rationale, the word, “formal” has been inserted in front of the word, “objection”. What is the meaning/need for the insertion of “formal” before “objection”? Is there a thought that there are “informal” objection processes? This language also appears in Rationale 6 and there are NUMEROUS insertions of this reference in the Section on Deliberations. Is there some intended effect here with respect to Subsection d. which specifies that a change in Registry Voluntary Commitments that is made in response to a “formal objection” invokes an application change process? Is the idea that if there are RVCs that are agreed OUTSIDE the “formal objection” process (i.e. via an “informal” objection), those RVCs are somehow NOT subject to an application change process and related public comment? I thought we had established that all new RVCs need to be subject to an application change process and public comment. 3. Section 2.9.1 Community Applications – Subsection c. “New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable.” Thanks for deleting the reference to the conclusion that the IRT should be the body that determines any needed changes to the CPE Guidelines. However, what was discussed when the “can’t live with” comments were reviewed is that there is a need to specify that the WG is seeking public comment on the CPE Guidelines. We should be specifying at this point in the text that we are seeking that comment and we should provide the link at this same point in the text so that we call attention to the request for public comment on the CPE Guidelines (but not the scoring.) Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 10:44 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear all, The following are now available for your review in the production document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...>. The deadline for comments is Wednesday 15 July at 23:59 UTC. 1. Package 7 sections of the Report are now ready for “Can’t Live With” review (beginning on page 148<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...>): * Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. * Package 7 includes two report sections: * 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed on 11 June<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...>) - For this section, please limit “Can’t Live With” comments to the new text in the section, which is displayed in black. The text in grey has already gone through “Can’t Live With” review as part of an earlier package. * 2.3.2 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) / Public Interest Commitments (PICs) (last discussed on 18 June<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...>) * Comments will be tracked here<https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw>. 1. Package 6 revisions of the report, now ready for a final check (beginning on page 118<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...>): * Please limit feedback to errors in the edits, for example a revision that you believe does not accurately reflect the outcome of discussions about a “Can’t Live With” item. * Please send this type of feedback to the mailing list. Typo corrections can be sent directly to staff. * For package 6 sections, please do not raise new issues, introduce new “Can’t Live With” items, or re-open deliberations. * A high-level summary of the “Can’t Live With” input received is available here<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report>. And a detailed log with the outcomes from the WG’s consideration of that input is available here<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1blgQjzh_vR7WQ1utsqBnHDb8_b2DD7IDQu-b...>. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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.

Jamie, I don’t disagree with any of what you have said below. I am only saying that the document now creates the possibility that someone can argue that an RVC adopted in response to private negotiations (as opposed to the currently listed mechanisms) would not be viewed as an application change request requiring public comment. It is certainly not my purpose to “create” an informal objection. My purpose is to clarify that any RVC adopted to resolve a potential dispute (not just formal objection) should trigger an application change request process that requires public comment. Perhaps I have used the wrong language to try to accomplish that but it seems to me that once we say that Application Change Request with public comment only applies where there is a “formal objection”, then you have created a big loophole to transparency. Not intending to create a new category, just recognizing that private parties may approach each other and negotiate and the outcome could be a “settlement” that results in an RVC and that should always be subject to public comment. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 6:56 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne I think my point may have been missed so I’ll try again. Currently there are public comments and there are objections (formal objections). These are two clearly defined periods for comment and opposition to be expressed by those reviewing applications (minus any GAC processes). Each of these have clearly defined procedures and timelines associated with them as noted in the 2012 AGB, creating transparency and predictability for all. If someone is interested in expressing comment or opposition about an application they are required to do so within those confines (minus GAC). This makes it a fair playing field for all applicants, including community applicants. In the 2012 round, people expressed comment and opposition outside of those confines and ICANN took no steps to enforce the AGB rules or prevent that comment or opposition from impacting the application and evaluation process. This diminished any transparency and predictability that was promised to applicants, and it was in contradiction to what the AGB provided for comment and oppostion. For standard applicants, any comment or opposition expressed after initial evaluation and “formal” objections were completed had no further impact, however for community applicants, ICANN’s miscarriage of the AGB rules had a direct impact on CPE scoring because of gaming. There is no such thing as informal objection in the AGB (as Steve Chan has confirmed), and I do not believe we should be creating such a thing. There are clearly defined times to submit public comment (for free) and there are clearly defined times to challenge applications via the objection process (at a cost). We should not be striping the transparency and predictability out of the process for applicants by allowing an undefined new category of “informal objection” that has no time limit or constraint. As I have pointed out on multiple occasion, all applicants should be treated equally in the process, but community applicants were not in the 2012 round, leaving them subject to an ICANN imposed additional period for people to game them in CPE by going after criteria 4 scoring. Hopefully that clarifies. Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 8:08 PM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Hi Jamie – I think transparency is the issue. If the new language says that RVCs that are adopted in response to a “formal” objection require public comment, then that language, in and of itself, creates a category of objection that is “not formal”. That could easily be a call or a letter from some party that says, “If you don’t adopt the following RVC, we are going to file an objection.” In that case, the RVC that is adopted should also be subject to an Application Change Request and public comment. A private “threat” like that would not be a matter of public comment. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 4:01 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne I would venture to argue that informal objection is technically “public comment.” I do not support creating an undefined category of application input/intervention called “informal objection” that has no specific rules or timeline for submission. This does not add transparency to the process or predictability for applicants. Public comment and formal objections already have clearly defined rules and timelines. I continue to believe it was a miscarriage of the AGB to allow “letters of opposition” (a.k.a informal objection) to be accepted years after the public comment period was closed and the formal objection period was complete. There was certainly no reference in the AGB that this would be allowed or acceptable. It was ultimately a successful gaming tactic used against community applicants. Community applicants deserve the same level of predictability as all other applicants. Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 6:21 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Section 2.3.2 on RVCs and PICs says in Recommendation xx (Rationale 4) that ICANN MUST allow RVCs to be added after the application submission date in order to respond to public comments, objection, GAC Early Warnings, and/or GAC Consensus Advice. So obviously RVCs can be adopted in a context other than “formal objection”. That section then refers us to the Application Change Request section. Thus, in Section 2.4 Application Change Requests, it appears we may have to amend the following language in a. Recommendation xx (rationale 2): ICANN org must document the types of changes which are required to be posted for public comment and which are not required to be posted for public comment. The following is a non-exhaustive list of changes that must require public comment: * The addition of Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections (whether formal or informal), GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings * Changes to Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections, GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings * Changes associated with the formation of joint ventures (see Recommendation xx below) From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:53 PM To: 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Right Rubens – just looking for the language that confirms that because the section on Objections now says in d. that this applies where RVCs are adopted in response to concerns raised in a FORMAL objection. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:49 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 My take is that unless the RVC is already filed in the application, when it will be subject by comments as all applications, will trigger application change request which includes public comments. Why would that not be so ? Rubens On 15 Jul 2020, at 18:38, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Thanks Jamie. I’m looking for the language in the draft Final Report that confirms your understanding. As mentioned below, Subsection d. has some added language stating that RVCs adopted in response to “concerns raised in a formal objection” will be considered application changes. Maybe Jeff or staff can advise where we would find that RVCs adopted in response to concerns expressed by a party that has not yet filed such “formal objection” would also be subject to application change request and public comment. (It may be in the section on Registry Voluntary Commitments”, but I am just looking for confirmation that all RVCs, regardless of the stage in which they are proposed to address concerns, trigger application change request procedures and public comment on the RVCs. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:34 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne I do not believe that all informal objection is weighted equally (or at the level of formal objection) – at least that was our experience in the 2012 round – therefore not all informal objection necessarily invokes an application change request. That said, I do see opportunities where informal objection may invoke an application change request, such as in CPE to address a “letter of objection” targeting points in criteria 4. It has been my understanding that any application change request that extends beyond administrative adjustments to an application goes out for public comment – which I believe is the catch net to address your concerns below. I have never assumed that change requests stemming from informal objection are exempt from public comment. Do I understand that correctly? Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 5:07 PM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Yes – Jamie – that would be my understanding. The question posed relates to the fact that the later paragraph says that RVCs developed in response to a “formal objection” invoke an application change request and require public comment. I hope we have not inadvertently created an exception to this requirement in relation to RVCs adopted in response to an “informal” objection. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:29 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne My interpretation of “formal objection” would be those that are paid for via a dispute resolution provider, not to be confused with any other objection expressed in public comment or other format, including the ICANN correspondence page. Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 4:19 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 On Package 6, please see below: 1. re 2.6.1 re “Application Queuing”, the language shown below should be modified because the previous section is drafted as “more than 125” and the section below is drafted as “less than 125”. Language should be revised does not cover what happens if you get exactly 125 IDN applications: * If there are (delete “less than”) 125 or fewer applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be assigned priority numbersprocessed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application. 2. Section 2.8.1 – Objections I don’t understand why we would remove affirmations of Recommendation 2 and Recommendation 3 from this section. The fact that these Affirmations are affirmed elsewhere in the report does not change their relevance in relation to the subject of Objections. Please clarify whether these Affirmations are “in” or “out.” They don’t appear to be deleted but there are comments on the side saying they should be. Recommendation xx (rationale 3) Throughout this rationale, the word, “formal” has been inserted in front of the word, “objection”. What is the meaning/need for the insertion of “formal” before “objection”? Is there a thought that there are “informal” objection processes? This language also appears in Rationale 6 and there are NUMEROUS insertions of this reference in the Section on Deliberations. Is there some intended effect here with respect to Subsection d. which specifies that a change in Registry Voluntary Commitments that is made in response to a “formal objection” invokes an application change process? Is the idea that if there are RVCs that are agreed OUTSIDE the “formal objection” process (i.e. via an “informal” objection), those RVCs are somehow NOT subject to an application change process and related public comment? I thought we had established that all new RVCs need to be subject to an application change process and public comment. 3. Section 2.9.1 Community Applications – Subsection c. “New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable.” Thanks for deleting the reference to the conclusion that the IRT should be the body that determines any needed changes to the CPE Guidelines. However, what was discussed when the “can’t live with” comments were reviewed is that there is a need to specify that the WG is seeking public comment on the CPE Guidelines. We should be specifying at this point in the text that we are seeking that comment and we should provide the link at this same point in the text so that we call attention to the request for public comment on the CPE Guidelines (but not the scoring.) Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 10:44 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear all, The following are now available for your review in the production document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...>. The deadline for comments is Wednesday 15 July at 23:59 UTC. 1. Package 7 sections of the Report are now ready for “Can’t Live With” review (beginning on page 148<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...>): * Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. * Package 7 includes two report sections: * 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed on 11 June<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...>) - For this section, please limit “Can’t Live With” comments to the new text in the section, which is displayed in black. The text in grey has already gone through “Can’t Live With” review as part of an earlier package. * 2.3.2 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) / Public Interest Commitments (PICs) (last discussed on 18 June<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...>) * Comments will be tracked here<https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw>. 1. Package 6 revisions of the report, now ready for a final check (beginning on page 118<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...>): * Please limit feedback to errors in the edits, for example a revision that you believe does not accurately reflect the outcome of discussions about a “Can’t Live With” item. * Please send this type of feedback to the mailing list. Typo corrections can be sent directly to staff. * For package 6 sections, please do not raise new issues, introduce new “Can’t Live With” items, or re-open deliberations. * A high-level summary of the “Can’t Live With” input received is available here<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report>. And a detailed log with the outcomes from the WG’s consideration of that input is available here<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1blgQjzh_vR7WQ1utsqBnHDb8_b2DD7IDQu-b...>. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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.

No – that’s the issue I am raising. All the changes to “formal objection” in the Objections section raise questions about the various references to “objections” in both the RVC section and the Application Change Request section. Those sections talk about “objections”. I did not see a prohibition on adopting RVCs in response to private negotiations with a party that is threatening to file an Objection. If we are permitting an RVC to be adopted during a private negotiation process, the RVC should be subject to public comment. If we are prohibiting adoption of an RVC to resolve a dispute before it gets to the formal Objection phase, then I am also fine with that. I am not fine with RVCs being adopted in private negotiations with that potentially not being subject to public comment. This is not at all clear in the document. We make reference to “formal objections” in the Objections section and just use the word “objections” in the RVC and Application Change Request section. We do not make any references to an RVC adopted pursuant to private negotiation before an Objection is filed. If we are going to allow those, it needs to be clear and it also needs to be clear that they are subject to public comment. If we are not going to allow that kind of private resolution, that has to be clear from the document. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 7:16 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne And I don’t disagree with your concerns, however I thought Steve had pointed to where in the language your concern was covered. No? Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 10:04 AM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Jamie, I don’t disagree with any of what you have said below. I am only saying that the document now creates the possibility that someone can argue that an RVC adopted in response to private negotiations (as opposed to the currently listed mechanisms) would not be viewed as an application change request requiring public comment. It is certainly not my purpose to “create” an informal objection. My purpose is to clarify that any RVC adopted to resolve a potential dispute (not just formal objection) should trigger an application change request process that requires public comment. Perhaps I have used the wrong language to try to accomplish that but it seems to me that once we say that Application Change Request with public comment only applies where there is a “formal objection”, then you have created a big loophole to transparency. Not intending to create a new category, just recognizing that private parties may approach each other and negotiate and the outcome could be a “settlement” that results in an RVC and that should always be subject to public comment. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 6:56 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne I think my point may have been missed so I’ll try again. Currently there are public comments and there are objections (formal objections). These are two clearly defined periods for comment and opposition to be expressed by those reviewing applications (minus any GAC processes). Each of these have clearly defined procedures and timelines associated with them as noted in the 2012 AGB, creating transparency and predictability for all. If someone is interested in expressing comment or opposition about an application they are required to do so within those confines (minus GAC). This makes it a fair playing field for all applicants, including community applicants. In the 2012 round, people expressed comment and opposition outside of those confines and ICANN took no steps to enforce the AGB rules or prevent that comment or opposition from impacting the application and evaluation process. This diminished any transparency and predictability that was promised to applicants, and it was in contradiction to what the AGB provided for comment and oppostion. For standard applicants, any comment or opposition expressed after initial evaluation and “formal” objections were completed had no further impact, however for community applicants, ICANN’s miscarriage of the AGB rules had a direct impact on CPE scoring because of gaming. There is no such thing as informal objection in the AGB (as Steve Chan has confirmed), and I do not believe we should be creating such a thing. There are clearly defined times to submit public comment (for free) and there are clearly defined times to challenge applications via the objection process (at a cost). We should not be striping the transparency and predictability out of the process for applicants by allowing an undefined new category of “informal objection” that has no time limit or constraint. As I have pointed out on multiple occasion, all applicants should be treated equally in the process, but community applicants were not in the 2012 round, leaving them subject to an ICANN imposed additional period for people to game them in CPE by going after criteria 4 scoring. Hopefully that clarifies. Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 8:08 PM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Hi Jamie – I think transparency is the issue. If the new language says that RVCs that are adopted in response to a “formal” objection require public comment, then that language, in and of itself, creates a category of objection that is “not formal”. That could easily be a call or a letter from some party that says, “If you don’t adopt the following RVC, we are going to file an objection.” In that case, the RVC that is adopted should also be subject to an Application Change Request and public comment. A private “threat” like that would not be a matter of public comment. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 4:01 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne I would venture to argue that informal objection is technically “public comment.” I do not support creating an undefined category of application input/intervention called “informal objection” that has no specific rules or timeline for submission. This does not add transparency to the process or predictability for applicants. Public comment and formal objections already have clearly defined rules and timelines. I continue to believe it was a miscarriage of the AGB to allow “letters of opposition” (a.k.a informal objection) to be accepted years after the public comment period was closed and the formal objection period was complete. There was certainly no reference in the AGB that this would be allowed or acceptable. It was ultimately a successful gaming tactic used against community applicants. Community applicants deserve the same level of predictability as all other applicants. Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 6:21 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Section 2.3.2 on RVCs and PICs says in Recommendation xx (Rationale 4) that ICANN MUST allow RVCs to be added after the application submission date in order to respond to public comments, objection, GAC Early Warnings, and/or GAC Consensus Advice. So obviously RVCs can be adopted in a context other than “formal objection”. That section then refers us to the Application Change Request section. Thus, in Section 2.4 Application Change Requests, it appears we may have to amend the following language in a. Recommendation xx (rationale 2): ICANN org must document the types of changes which are required to be posted for public comment and which are not required to be posted for public comment. The following is a non-exhaustive list of changes that must require public comment: * The addition of Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections (whether formal or informal), GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings * Changes to Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections, GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings * Changes associated with the formation of joint ventures (see Recommendation xx below) From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:53 PM To: 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Right Rubens – just looking for the language that confirms that because the section on Objections now says in d. that this applies where RVCs are adopted in response to concerns raised in a FORMAL objection. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:49 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 My take is that unless the RVC is already filed in the application, when it will be subject by comments as all applications, will trigger application change request which includes public comments. Why would that not be so ? Rubens On 15 Jul 2020, at 18:38, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Thanks Jamie. I’m looking for the language in the draft Final Report that confirms your understanding. As mentioned below, Subsection d. has some added language stating that RVCs adopted in response to “concerns raised in a formal objection” will be considered application changes. Maybe Jeff or staff can advise where we would find that RVCs adopted in response to concerns expressed by a party that has not yet filed such “formal objection” would also be subject to application change request and public comment. (It may be in the section on Registry Voluntary Commitments”, but I am just looking for confirmation that all RVCs, regardless of the stage in which they are proposed to address concerns, trigger application change request procedures and public comment on the RVCs. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:34 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne I do not believe that all informal objection is weighted equally (or at the level of formal objection) – at least that was our experience in the 2012 round – therefore not all informal objection necessarily invokes an application change request. That said, I do see opportunities where informal objection may invoke an application change request, such as in CPE to address a “letter of objection” targeting points in criteria 4. It has been my understanding that any application change request that extends beyond administrative adjustments to an application goes out for public comment – which I believe is the catch net to address your concerns below. I have never assumed that change requests stemming from informal objection are exempt from public comment. Do I understand that correctly? Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 5:07 PM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Yes – Jamie – that would be my understanding. The question posed relates to the fact that the later paragraph says that RVCs developed in response to a “formal objection” invoke an application change request and require public comment. I hope we have not inadvertently created an exception to this requirement in relation to RVCs adopted in response to an “informal” objection. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:29 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne My interpretation of “formal objection” would be those that are paid for via a dispute resolution provider, not to be confused with any other objection expressed in public comment or other format, including the ICANN correspondence page. Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 4:19 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 On Package 6, please see below: 1. re 2.6.1 re “Application Queuing”, the language shown below should be modified because the previous section is drafted as “more than 125” and the section below is drafted as “less than 125”. Language should be revised does not cover what happens if you get exactly 125 IDN applications: * If there are (delete “less than”) 125 or fewer applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be assigned priority numbersprocessed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application. 2. Section 2.8.1 – Objections I don’t understand why we would remove affirmations of Recommendation 2 and Recommendation 3 from this section. The fact that these Affirmations are affirmed elsewhere in the report does not change their relevance in relation to the subject of Objections. Please clarify whether these Affirmations are “in” or “out.” They don’t appear to be deleted but there are comments on the side saying they should be. Recommendation xx (rationale 3) Throughout this rationale, the word, “formal” has been inserted in front of the word, “objection”. What is the meaning/need for the insertion of “formal” before “objection”? Is there a thought that there are “informal” objection processes? This language also appears in Rationale 6 and there are NUMEROUS insertions of this reference in the Section on Deliberations. Is there some intended effect here with respect to Subsection d. which specifies that a change in Registry Voluntary Commitments that is made in response to a “formal objection” invokes an application change process? Is the idea that if there are RVCs that are agreed OUTSIDE the “formal objection” process (i.e. via an “informal” objection), those RVCs are somehow NOT subject to an application change process and related public comment? I thought we had established that all new RVCs need to be subject to an application change process and public comment. 3. Section 2.9.1 Community Applications – Subsection c. “New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable.” Thanks for deleting the reference to the conclusion that the IRT should be the body that determines any needed changes to the CPE Guidelines. However, what was discussed when the “can’t live with” comments were reviewed is that there is a need to specify that the WG is seeking public comment on the CPE Guidelines. We should be specifying at this point in the text that we are seeking that comment and we should provide the link at this same point in the text so that we call attention to the request for public comment on the CPE Guidelines (but not the scoring.) Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 10:44 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear all, The following are now available for your review in the production document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...>. The deadline for comments is Wednesday 15 July at 23:59 UTC. 1. Package 7 sections of the Report are now ready for “Can’t Live With” review (beginning on page 148<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...>): * Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. * Package 7 includes two report sections: * 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed on 11 June<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...>) - For this section, please limit “Can’t Live With” comments to the new text in the section, which is displayed in black. The text in grey has already gone through “Can’t Live With” review as part of an earlier package. * 2.3.2 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) / Public Interest Commitments (PICs) (last discussed on 18 June<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...>) * Comments will be tracked here<https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw>. 1. Package 6 revisions of the report, now ready for a final check (beginning on page 118<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...>): * Please limit feedback to errors in the edits, for example a revision that you believe does not accurately reflect the outcome of discussions about a “Can’t Live With” item. * Please send this type of feedback to the mailing list. Typo corrections can be sent directly to staff. * For package 6 sections, please do not raise new issues, introduce new “Can’t Live With” items, or re-open deliberations. * A high-level summary of the “Can’t Live With” input received is available here<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report>. And a detailed log with the outcomes from the WG’s consideration of that input is available here<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1blgQjzh_vR7WQ1utsqBnHDb8_b2DD7IDQu-b...>. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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.

Disagree, Jeff, We expressly did not choose this language earlier.  We agreed RVCs would be driven by comments, particularly from the GAC, would go through public comment processes, etc.  It is not designed for an individual registry applicant to do anything it "desires."  The applicant had the chance to submit anything it desired with the original application -- at this latter point in the process, the Community is engaged in a process of responding to that original submission.  I strongly object to this line.  Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Neuman" To:"Aikman-Scalese Anne" , "Jamie Baxter" , "Rubens Kuhl" , "gnso-newgtld-wg@icannorg" Cc: Sent:Thu, 16 Jul 2020 16:32:05 +0000 Subject:Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 I am trying to distill all of these emails from the last 24 hours and here are my thoughts.   * The text in the existing Applicant Guidebook states:  “A formal objection can be filed only on four enumerated grounds, as described in this module. A formal objection initiates a dispute resolution proceeding.”  Thus using the term “formal” does make sense in Section 2.3.2 Recommendation XX (Rationale 4).  It does not make sense to include the word “informal” there because it creates a category of objections that does not exist.    * Why don’t we just state something like: “ICANN must allow applicants to submit Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs)(previously called voluntary PICs) in subsequent rounds in their applications and/or to respond to public comments, objections, GAC Early Warnings, GAC Consensus Advice, or for any other reason the applicant desires to make additional commitments.     The point of that language was to use as an example, but it was not intended to be a limited list.  Plus, when combined with the language Steve quoted, there is no doubt that all RVCs are subject to public comment (whether they are in the initial application) or submitted as an Application Change.     Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com [1] http://jjnsolutions.com     FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg ON BEHALF OF Aikman-Scalese, Anne SENT: Thursday, July 16, 2020 10:26 AM TO: Jamie Baxter ; Rubens Kuhl ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   No – that’s the issue I am raising.  All the changes to “formal objection” in the Objections section raise questions about the various references to “objections” in both the RVC section and the Application Change Request section  Those sections talk about “objections”.  I did not see a prohibition on adopting RVCs in response to private negotiations with a party that is threatening to file an Objection.  If we are permitting an RVC to be adopted during a private negotiation process, the RVC should be subject to public comment.  If we are prohibiting adoption of an RVC to resolve a dispute before it gets to the formal Objection phase, then I am also fine with that.    I am not fine with RVCs being adopted in private negotiations with that potentially not being subject to public comment. This is not at all clear in the document.  We make reference to “formal objections” in the Objections section and just use the word “objections” in the RVC and Application Change Request section.  We do not make any references to an RVC adopted pursuant to private negotiation before an Objection is filed.  If we are going to allow those, it needs to be clear and it also needs to be clear that they are subject to public comment.  If we are not going to allow that kind of private resolution, that has to be clear from the document. Anne   FROM: Jamie Baxter SENT: Thursday, July 16, 2020 7:16 AM TO: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; Rubens Kuhl ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [5] SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   [EXTERNAL] ------------------------- Hey Anne   And I don’t disagree with your concerns, however I thought Steve had pointed to where in the language your concern was covered. No?   Jamie     FROM: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" DATE: Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 10:04 AM TO: Jamie Baxter , Rubens Kuhl , "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [9]" SUBJECT: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   Jamie, I don’t disagree with any of what you have said below.  I am only saying that the document now creates the possibility that someone can argue that an RVC adopted in response to private negotiations (as opposed to the currently listed mechanisms) would not be viewed as an application change request requiring public comment.     It is certainly not my purpose to “create” an informal objection.  My purpose is to clarify that any RVC adopted to resolve a potential dispute (not just  formal objection) should trigger an application change request process that requires public comment.    Perhaps I have used the wrong language to try to accomplish that but it seems to me that once we say that Application Change Request with public comment only applies where there is a “formal objection”, then you have created a big loophole to transparency.    Not intending to create a new category, just recognizing that private parties may approach each other and negotiate and the outcome could be a “settlement” that results in an RVC and that should always be subject to public comment. Anne   FROM: Jamie Baxter SENT: Thursday, July 16, 2020 6:56 AM TO: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; Rubens Kuhl ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [14] SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   [EXTERNAL] ------------------------- Hey Anne   I think my point may have been missed so I’ll try again.   Currently there are public comments and there are objections (formal objections). These are two clearly defined periods for comment and opposition to be expressed by those reviewing applications (minus any GAC processes). Each of these have clearly defined procedures and timelines associated with them as noted in the 2012 AGB, creating transparency and predictability for all. If someone is interested in expressing comment or opposition about an application they are required to do so within those confines (minus GAC). This makes it a fair playing field for all applicants, including community applicants.   In the 2012 round, people expressed comment and opposition outside of those confines and ICANN took no steps to enforce the AGB rules or prevent that comment or opposition from impacting the application and evaluation process. This diminished any transparency and predictability that was promised to applicants, and it was in contradiction to what the AGB provided for comment and oppostion. For standard applicants, any comment or opposition expressed after initial evaluation and “formal” objections were completed had no further impact, however for community applicants, ICANN’s miscarriage of the AGB rules had a direct impact on CPE scoring because of gaming.   There is no such thing as informal objection in the AGB (as Steve Chan has confirmed), and I do not believe we should be creating such a thing. There are clearly defined times to submit public comment (for free) and there are clearly defined times to challenge applications via the objection process (at a cost). We should not be striping the transparency and predictability out of the process for applicants by allowing an undefined new category of “informal objection” that has no time limit or constraint.   As I have pointed out on multiple occasion, all applicants should be treated equally in the process, but community applicants were not in the 2012 round, leaving them subject to an ICANN imposed additional period for people to game them in CPE by going after criteria 4 scoring.   Hopefully that clarifies. Jamie       FROM: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" DATE: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 8:08 PM TO: Jamie Baxter , Rubens Kuhl , "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [18]" SUBJECT: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   Hi Jamie – I think transparency is the issue.  If the new language says that RVCs that are adopted in response to a “formal” objection require public comment, then that language, in and of itself, creates a category of objection that is “not formal”. That could easily be a call or a letter from some party that says, “If you don’t adopt the following RVC, we are going to file an objection.”  In that case, the RVC that is adopted should also be subject to an Application Change Request and public comment.  A private “threat” like that would not be a matter of public comment.   Anne   FROM: Jamie Baxter SENT: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 4:01 PM TO: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; Rubens Kuhl ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [23] SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   [EXTERNAL] ------------------------- Hey Anne   I would venture to argue that informal objection is technically “public comment.” I do not support creating an undefined category of application input/intervention called “informal objection” that has no specific rules or timeline for submission. This does not add transparency to the process or predictability for applicants. Public comment and formal objections already have clearly defined rules and timelines.   I continue to believe it was a miscarriage of the AGB to allow “letters of opposition” (a.k.a informal objection) to be accepted years after the public comment period was closed and the formal objection period was complete. There was certainly no reference in the AGB that this would be allowed or acceptable. It was ultimately a successful gaming tactic used against community applicants. Community applicants deserve the same level of predictability as all other applicants.   Jamie     FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" DATE: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 6:21 PM TO: Rubens Kuhl , "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [27]" SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   Section 2.3.2 on RVCs and PICs says in Recommendation xx (Rationale 4) that ICANN MUST allow RVCs to be added after the application submission date in order to respond to public comments, objection, GAC Early Warnings, and/or GAC Consensus Advice.  So obviously RVCs can be adopted in a context other than “formal objection”.  That section then refers us to the Application Change Request section.   Thus, in Section 2.4 Application Change Requests, it appears we may have to amend the following language in a.   Recommendation xx (rationale 2): ICANN org must document the types of changes which are required to be posted for public comment and which are not required to be posted for public comment. The following is a non-exhaustive list of changes that must require public comment: * The addition of Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections (whether formal or informal), GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings * Changes to Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections, GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings * Changes associated with the formation of joint ventures (see Recommendation xx below)     FROM: Aikman-Scalese, Anne SENT: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:53 PM TO: 'Rubens Kuhl' ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [30] SUBJECT: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   Right Rubens – just looking for the language that confirms that because the section on Objections now says in d. that this applies where RVCs are adopted in response to concerns raised in a FORMAL objection.   FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg ON BEHALF OF Rubens Kuhl SENT: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:49 PM TO: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [32] SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6     My take is that unless the RVC is already filed in the application, when it will be subject by comments as all applications, will trigger application change request which includes public comments.  Why would that not be so ?      Rubens     On 15 Jul 2020, at 18:38, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:   Thanks Jamie.  I’m looking for the language in the draft Final Report that confirms your understanding.  As mentioned below, Subsection d. has some added language stating that RVCs adopted in response to “concerns raised in a formal objection” will be considered application changes.   Maybe Jeff or staff can advise where we would find that RVCs adopted in response to concerns expressed by a party that has not yet filed such “formal objection” would also be subject to application change request and public comment.  (It may be in the section on Registry Voluntary Commitments”, but I am just looking for confirmation that all RVCs, regardless of the stage in which they are proposed to address concerns, trigger application change request procedures and public comment on the RVCs. Anne   FROM: Jamie Baxter   SENT: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:34 PM TO: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; Emily Barabas ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [37] SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   [EXTERNAL] ------------------------- Hey Anne   I do not believe that all informal objection is weighted equally (or at the level of formal objection) – at least that was our experience in the 2012 round – therefore not all informal objection necessarily invokes an application change request. That said, I do see opportunities where informal objection may invoke an application change request, such as in CPE to address a “letter of objection” targeting points in criteria 4.   It has been my understanding that any application change request that extends beyond administrative adjustments to an application goes out for public comment – which I believe is the catch net to address your concerns below. I have never assumed that change requests stemming from informal objection are exempt from public comment. Do I understand that correctly?   Jamie     FROM: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" DATE: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 5:07 PM TO: Jamie Baxter , Emily Barabas , "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [41]" SUBJECT: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   Yes – Jamie – that would be my understanding. The question posed relates to the fact that the later paragraph says that RVCs developed in response to a “formal objection” invoke an application change request and require public comment.  I hope we have not inadvertently created an exception to this requirement in relation to RVCs adopted in response to an “informal” objection. Anne   FROM: Jamie Baxter   SENT: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:29 PM TO: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; Emily Barabas ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [46] SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   [EXTERNAL] ------------------------- Hey Anne   My interpretation of “formal objection” would be those that are paid for via a dispute resolution provider, not to be confused with any other objection expressed in public comment or other format, including the ICANN correspondence page.   Jamie     FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" DATE: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 4:19 PM TO: Emily Barabas , "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [50]" SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   ON PACKAGE 6, PLEASE SEE BELOW:   1. RE 2.6.1 RE “APPLICATION QUEUING”, the language shown below should be modified because the previous section is drafted as “more than 125” and the section below is drafted as “less than 125”.  Language should be revised does not cover what happens if you get exactly 125 IDN applications:   * * If there are (delete “less than”) 125 or fewer applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be assigned priority numbersprocessed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application.   2. SECTION 2.8.1 – OBJECTIONS I don’t understand why we would remove affirmations of Recommendation 2 and Recommendation 3 from this section.  The fact that these Affirmations are affirmed elsewhere in the report does not change their relevance in relation to the subject of Objections.  Please clarify whether these Affirmations are “in” or “out.”  They don’t appear to be deleted but there are comments on the side saying they should be.   Recommendation xx (rationale 3) Throughout this rationale, the word, “formal” has been inserted in front of the word, “objection”.  What is the meaning/need for the insertion of “formal” before “objection”?  Is there a thought that there are “informal” objection processes?  This language also appears in Rationale 6 and there are NUMEROUS insertions of this reference in the Section on Deliberations.  Is there some intended effect here with respect to Subsection d. which specifies that a change in Registry Voluntary Commitments that is made in response to a “formal objection” invokes an application change process?  Is the idea that if there are RVCs that are agreed OUTSIDE the “formal objection” process (i.e. via an “informal” objection), those RVCs are somehow NOT subject to an application change process and related public comment?   I thought we had established that all new RVCs need to be subject to an application change process and public comment.   3. SECTION 2.9.1 COMMUNITY APPLICATIONS – SUBSECTION C. “New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable.” Thanks for deleting the reference to the conclusion that the IRT should be the body that determines any needed changes to the CPE Guidelines.  However, what was discussed when the “can’t live with” comments were reviewed is that there is a need to specify that the WG is seeking public comment on the CPE Guidelines.  We should be specifying at this point in the text that we are seeking that comment and we should provide the link at this same point in the text so that we call attention to the request for public comment on the CPE Guidelines (but not the scoring.)   Thank you, Anne   FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg  ON BEHALF OF Emily Barabas SENT: Friday, July 10, 2020 10:44 AM TO: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [53] SUBJECT: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   [EXTERNAL] ------------------------- Dear all,   The following are now available for your review in the production document [54]. The DEADLINE for comments is WEDNESDAY 15 JULY AT 23:59 UTC. * PACKAGE 7 sections of the Report are now ready for “CAN’T LIVE WITH” review (beginning on page 148 [55]): * Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. * Package 7 includes two report sections: * * 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed on 11 June [56]) - For this section, PLEASE LIMIT “CAN’T LIVE WITH” COMMENTS TO THE NEW TEXT IN THE SECTION, which is displayed in black. The text in grey has already gone through “Can’t Live With” review as part of an earlier package. * 2.3.2 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) / Public Interest Commitments (PICs) (last discussed on 18 June [57]) * Comments will be tracked here [58].   * PACKAGE 6 revisions of the report, now ready for a FINAL CHECK (beginning on page 118 [59]):  * Please limit feedback to errors in the edits, for example a revision that you believe does not accurately reflect the outcome of discussions about a “Can’t Live With” item. * Please send this type of feedback to the mailing list. Typo corrections can be sent directly to staff. * For package 6 sections, please do not raise new issues, introduce new “Can’t Live With” items, or re-open deliberations.  * A high-level summary of the “Can’t Live With” input received is available here [60]. And a detailed log with the outcomes from the WG’s consideration of that input is available here [61]. Kind regards, Emily     Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org [62]     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.   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.   ------------------------- 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [63] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg [64] _______________________________________________ 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 [65]) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [66]). 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.     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.   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.   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.   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. Links: ------ [1] mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com [2] mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com [3] mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com [4] mailto:rubensk@nic.br [5] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [6] mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com [7] mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com [8] mailto:rubensk@nic.br [9] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [10] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [11] mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com [12] mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com [13] mailto:rubensk@nic.br [14] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [15] mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com [16] mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com [17] mailto:rubensk@nic.br [18] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [19] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icannorg [20] mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com [21] mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com [22] mailto:rubensk@nic.br [23] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [24] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [25] mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com [26] mailto:rubensk@nic.br [27] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icannorg [28] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [29] mailto:rubensk@nic.br [30] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [31] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [32] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [33] mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com [34] mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com [35] mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com [36] mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org [37] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [38] mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com [39] mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com [40] mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org [41] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [42] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [43] mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com [44] mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com [45] mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org [46] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [47] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [48] mailto:AAikman@lrrccom [49] mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org [50] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [51] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [52] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [53] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [54] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu... [55] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu... [56] https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro... [57] https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro... [58] https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw [59] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu... [60] https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report [61] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1blgQjzh_vR7WQ1utsqBnHDb8_b2DD7IDQu-b... [62] http://www.icann.org/ [63] mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [64] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg [65] https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [66] https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos

Jeff, you have reversed months of discussion and negotiation with one fell swoop of your pen.  I object- this was not the agreement. Best, Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Neuman" To:"Kathy Kleiman" , "Aikman-Scalese Anne" , "Jamie Baxter" , "Rubens Kuhl" , "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" Cc: Sent:Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:35:30 +0000 Subject:RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 I don’t understand your concern Kathy.  All proposed RVCs will be put out for comment.  I don’t see the issue a Registry for a TLD wanting to add voluntary obligations for it to follow (contractually enforced).    Example, Applicant proposes .crypto and submits its application.  After submitting the application, applicant is approached by the American Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Association who expresses a concern that the Applicant has not agreed to follow the CryptoCurrency Security Standard in its application.  Applicant realizes its mistake or realizes it would be better to include those in its application, so it files an Application Change request to commit to an additional RVC.   What’s wrong with that?     Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com [1] http://jjnsolutions.com     FROM: Kathy Kleiman SENT: Thursday, July 16, 2020 1:17 PM TO: Jeff Neuman ; Aikman-Scalese Anne ; Jamie Baxter ; Rubens Kuhl ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   Disagree, Jeff, We expressly did not choose this language earlier.  We agreed RVCs would be driven by comments, particularly from the GAC, would go through public comment processes, etc.  It is not designed for an individual registry applicant to do anything it "desires."  The applicant had the chance to submit anything it desired with the original application -- at this latter point in the process, the Community is engaged in a process of responding to that original submission.    I strongly object to this line.  Kathy ----- Original Message ----- FROM: "Jeff Neuman"   TO: "Aikman-Scalese Anne" , "Jamie Baxter" , "Rubens Kuhl" , "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [6]" CC:   SENT: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 16:32:05 +0000 SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 I am trying to distill all of these emails from the last 24 hours and here are my thoughts.   * The text in the existing Applicant Guidebook states:  “A formal objection can be filed only on four enumerated grounds, as described in this module. A formal objection initiates a dispute resolution proceeding.”  Thus using the term “formal” does make sense in Section 2.3.2 Recommendation XX (Rationale 4).  It does not make sense to include the word “informal” there because it creates a category of objections that does not exist.    * Why don’t we just state something like: “ICANN must allow applicants to submit Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs)(previously called voluntary PICs) in subsequent rounds in their applications and/or to respond to public comments, objections, GAC Early Warnings, GAC Consensus Advice, or for any other reason the applicant desires to make additional commitments.     The point of that language was to use as an example, but it was not intended to be a limited list.  Plus, when combined with the language Steve quoted, there is no doubt that all RVCs are subject to public comment (whether they are in the initial application) or submitted as an Application Change.     Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com [8] http://jjnsolutions.com [9]     FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg ON BEHALF OF Aikman-Scalese, Anne SENT: Thursday, July 16, 2020 10:26 AM TO: Jamie Baxter ; Rubens Kuhl ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [13] SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   No – that’s the issue I am raising.  All the changes to “formal objection” in the Objections section raise questions about the various references to “objections” in both the RVC section and the Application Change Request section.  Those sections talk about “objections”.  I did not see a prohibition on adopting RVCs in response to private negotiations with a party that is threatening to file an Objection.  If we are permitting an RVC to be adopted during a private negotiation process, the RVC should be subject to public comment.  If we are prohibiting adoption of an RVC to resolve a dispute before it gets to the formal Objection phase, then I am also fine with that.    I am not fine with RVCs being adopted in private negotiations with that potentially not being subject to public comment. This is not at all clear in the document.  We make reference to “formal objections” in the Objections section and just use the word “objections” in the RVC and Application Change Request section.  We do not make any references to an RVC adopted pursuant to private negotiation before an Objection is filed.  If we are going to allow those, it needs to be clear and it also needs to be clear that they are subject to public comment  If we are not going to allow that kind of private resolution, that has to be clear from the document. Anne   FROM: Jamie Baxter SENT: Thursday, July 16, 2020 7:16 AM TO: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; Rubens Kuhl ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [17] SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne   And I don’t disagree with your concerns, however I thought Steve had pointed to where in the language your concern was covered. No?   Jamie     FROM: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" DATE: Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 10:04 AM TO: Jamie Baxter , Rubens Kuhl , "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [21]" SUBJECT: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   Jamie, I don’t disagree with any of what you have said below.  I am only saying that the document now creates the possibility that someone can argue that an RVC adopted in response to private negotiations (as opposed to the currently listed mechanisms) would not be viewed as an application change request requiring public comment.     It is certainly not my purpose to “create” an informal objection.  My purpose is to clarify that any RVC adopted to resolve a potential dispute (not just  formal objection) should trigger an application change request process that requires public comment.    Perhaps I have used the wrong language to try to accomplish that but it seems to me that once we say that Application Change Request with public comment only applies where there is a “formal objection”, then you have created a big loophole to transparency.    Not intending to create a new category, just recognizing that private parties may approach each other and negotiate and the outcome could be a “settlement” that results in an RVC and that should always be subject to public comment. Anne   FROM: Jamie Baxter SENT: Thursday, July 16, 2020 6:56 AM TO: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; Rubens Kuhl ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [26] SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne   I think my point may have been missed so I’ll try again.   Currently there are public comments and there are objections (formal objections). These are two clearly defined periods for comment and opposition to be expressed by those reviewing applications (minus any GAC processes). Each of these have clearly defined procedures and timelines associated with them as noted in the 2012 AGB, creating transparency and predictability for all. If someone is interested in expressing comment or opposition about an application they are required to do so within those confines (minus GAC). This makes it a fair playing field for all applicants, including community applicants.   In the 2012 round, people expressed comment and opposition outside of those confines and ICANN took no steps to enforce the AGB rules or prevent that comment or opposition from impacting the application and evaluation process. This diminished any transparency and predictability that was promised to applicants, and it was in contradiction to what the AGB provided for comment and oppostion. For standard applicants, any comment or opposition expressed after initial evaluation and “formal” objections were completed had no further impact, however for community applicants, ICANN’s miscarriage of the AGB rules had a direct impact on CPE scoring because of gaming.   There is no such thing as informal objection in the AGB (as Steve Chan has confirmed), and I do not believe we should be creating such a thing. There are clearly defined times to submit public comment (for free) and there are clearly defined times to challenge applications via the objection process (at a cost). We should not be striping the transparency and predictability out of the process for applicants by allowing an undefined new category of “informal objection” that has no time limit or constraint.   As I have pointed out on multiple occasion, all applicants should be treated equally in the process, but community applicants were not in the 2012 round, leaving them subject to an ICANN imposed additional period for people to game them in CPE by going after criteria 4 scoring   Hopefully that clarifies. Jamie       FROM: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" DATE: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 8:08 PM TO: Jamie Baxter , Rubens Kuhl , "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [30]" SUBJECT: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   Hi Jamie – I think transparency is the issue.  If the new language says that RVCs that are adopted in response to a “formal” objection require public comment, then that language, in and of itself, creates a category of objection that is “not formal”. That could easily be a call or a letter from some party that says, “If you don’t adopt the following RVC, we are going to file an objection.”  In that case, the RVC that is adopted should also be subject to an Application Change Request and public comment.  A private “threat” like that would not be a matter of public comment.   Anne   FROM: Jamie Baxter SENT: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 4:01 PM TO: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; Rubens Kuhl ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [35] SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne   I would venture to argue that informal objection is technically “public comment.” I do not support creating an undefined category of application input/intervention called “informal objection” that has no specific rules or timeline for submission. This does not add transparency to the process or predictability for applicants. Public comment and formal objections already have clearly defined rules and timelines.   I continue to believe it was a miscarriage of the AGB to allow “letters of opposition” (a.k.a informal objection) to be accepted years after the public comment period was closed and the formal objection period was complete. There was certainly no reference in the AGB that this would be allowed or acceptable. It was ultimately a successful gaming tactic used against community applicants. Community applicants deserve the same level of predictability as all other applicants.   Jamie     FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" DATE: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 6:21 PM TO: Rubens Kuhl , "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [39]" SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   Section 2.3.2 on RVCs and PICs says in Recommendation xx (Rationale 4) that ICANN MUST allow RVCs to be added after the application submission date in order to respond to public comments, objection, GAC Early Warnings, and/or GAC Consensus Advice.  So obviously RVCs can be adopted in a context other than “formal objection”.  That section then refers us to the Application Change Request section.   Thus, in Section 2.4 Application Change Requests, it appears we may have to amend the following language in a.   Recommendation xx (rationale 2): ICANN org must document the types of changes which are required to be posted for public comment and which are not required to be posted for public comment. The following is a non-exhaustive list of changes that must require public comment: * The addition of Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections (whether formal or informal), GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings * Changes to Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections, GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings * Changes associated with the formation of joint ventures (see Recommendation xx below)     FROM: Aikman-Scalese, Anne SENT: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:53 PM TO: 'Rubens Kuhl' ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [42] SUBJECT: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   Right Rubens – just looking for the language that confirms that because the section on Objections now says in d. that this applies where RVCs are adopted in response to concerns raised in a FORMAL objection   FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg ON BEHALF OF Rubens Kuhl SENT: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:49 PM TO: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [44] SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6     My take is that unless the RVC is already filed in the application, when it will be subject by comments as all applications, will trigger application change request which includes public comments.  Why would that not be so ?      Rubens     On 15 Jul 2020, at 18:38, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:   Thanks Jamie.  I’m looking for the language in the draft Final Report that confirms your understanding.  As mentioned below, Subsection d. has some added language stating that RVCs adopted in response to “concerns raised in a formal objection” will be considered application changes.   Maybe Jeff or staff can advise where we would find that RVCs adopted in response to concerns expressed by a party that has not yet filed such “formal objection” would also be subject to application change request and public comment.  (It may be in the section on Registry Voluntary Commitments”, but I am just looking for confirmation that all RVCs, regardless of the stage in which they are proposed to address concerns, trigger application change request procedures and public comment on the RVCs. Anne   FROM: Jamie Baxter   SENT: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:34 PM TO: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; Emily Barabas ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [49] SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne   I do not believe that all informal objection is weighted equally (or at the level of formal objection) – at least that was our experience in the 2012 round – therefore not all informal objection necessarily invokes an application change request. That said, I do see opportunities where informal objection may invoke an application change request, such as in CPE to address a “letter of objection” targeting points in criteria 4.   It has been my understanding that any application change request that extends beyond administrative adjustments to an application goes out for public comment – which I believe is the catch net to address your concerns below. I have never assumed that change requests stemming from informal objection are exempt from public comment. Do I understand that correctly?   Jamie     FROM: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" DATE: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 5:07 PM TO: Jamie Baxter , Emily Barabas , "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [53]" SUBJECT: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   Yes – Jamie – that would be my understanding. The question posed relates to the fact that the later paragraph says that RVCs developed in response to a “formal objection” invoke an application change request and require public comment.  I hope we have not inadvertently created an exception to this requirement in relation to RVCs adopted in response to an “informal” objection. Anne   FROM: Jamie Baxter   SENT: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:29 PM TO: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; Emily Barabas ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [58] SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne   My interpretation of “formal objection” would be those that are paid for via a dispute resolution provider, not to be confused with any other objection expressed in public comment or other format, including the ICANN correspondence page.   Jamie     FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" DATE: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 4:19 PM TO: Emily Barabas , "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [62]" SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   ON PACKAGE 6, PLEASE SEE BELOW:   1. RE 2.6.1 RE “APPLICATION QUEUING”, the language shown below should be modified because the previous section is drafted as “more than 125” and the section below is drafted as “less than 125”.  Language should be revised does not cover what happens if you get exactly 125 IDN applications:   ·          * * If there are (delete “less than”) 125 or fewer applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be assigned priority numbersprocessed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application.   2. SECTION 2.8.1 – OBJECTIONS I don’t understand why we would remove affirmations of Recommendation 2 and Recommendation 3 from this section.  The fact that these Affirmations are affirmed elsewhere in the report does not change their relevance in relation to the subject of Objections.  Please clarify whether these Affirmations are “in” or “out.”  They don’t appear to be deleted but there are comments on the side saying they should be.   Recommendation xx (rationale 3) Throughout this rationale, the word, “formal” has been inserted in front of the word, “objection”.  What is the meaning/need for the insertion of “formal” before “objection”?  Is there a thought that there are “informal” objection processes?  This language also appears in Rationale 6 and there are NUMEROUS insertions of this reference in the Section on Deliberations.  Is there some intended effect here with respect to Subsection d. which specifies that a change in Registry Voluntary Commitments that is made in response to a “formal objection” invokes an application change process?  Is the idea that if there are RVCs that are agreed OUTSIDE the “formal objection” process (i.e. via an “informal” objection), those RVCs are somehow NOT subject to an application change process and related public comment?   I thought we had established that all new RVCs need to be subject to an application change process and public comment.   3. SECTION 2.9.1 COMMUNITY APPLICATIONS – SUBSECTION C. “New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable.” Thanks for deleting the reference to the conclusion that the IRT should be the body that determines any needed changes to the CPE Guidelines.  However, what was discussed when the “can’t live with” comments were reviewed is that there is a need to specify that the WG is seeking public comment on the CPE Guidelines.  We should be specifying at this point in the text that we are seeking that comment and we should provide the link at this same point in the text so that we call attention to the request for public comment on the CPE Guidelines (but not the scoring.)   Thank you, Anne   FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg  ON BEHALF OF Emily Barabas SENT: Friday, July 10, 2020 10:44 AM TO: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [65] SUBJECT: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6   [EXTERNAL] Dear all,   The following are now available for your review in the production document [66]. The DEADLINE for comments is WEDNESDAY 15 JULY AT 23:59 UTC. * PACKAGE 7 sections of the Report are now ready for “CAN’T LIVE WITH” review (beginning on page 148 [67]): * Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. * Package 7 includes two report sections: ·          * * 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed on 11 June [68]) - For this section, PLEASE LIMIT “CAN’T LIVE WITH” COMMENTS TO THE NEW TEXT IN THE SECTION, which is displayed in black. The text in grey has already gone through “Can’t Live With” review as part of an earlier package. * 2.3.2 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) / Public Interest Commitments (PICs) (last discussed on 18 June [69]) * Comments will be tracked here [70].   * PACKAGE 6 revisions of the report, now ready for a FINAL CHECK (beginning on page 118 [71]):  * Please limit feedback to errors in the edits, for example a revision that you believe does not accurately reflect the outcome of discussions about a “Can’t Live With” item. * Please send this type of feedback to the mailing list. Typo corrections can be sent directly to staff. * For package 6 sections, please do not raise new issues, introduce new “Can’t Live With” items, or re-open deliberations.  * A high-level summary of the “Can’t Live With” input received is available here [72]. And a detailed log with the outcomes from the WG’s consideration of that input is available here [73]. Kind regards, Emily     Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org [74]     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.   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.   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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [75] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg [76] _______________________________________________ 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 [77]) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [78]). 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.     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   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.   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.   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 US.C. §2510-2521. Links: ------ [1] mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com [2] mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com [3] mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com [4] mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com [5] mailto:rubensk@nic.br [6] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [7] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [8] mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com [9] http://jjnsolutions.com [10] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [11] mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com [12] mailto:rubensk@nic.br [13] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [14] mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com [15] mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com [16] mailto:rubensk@nic.br [17] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [18] mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com [19] mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com [20] mailto:rubensk@nic.br [21] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [22] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [23] mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com [24] mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com [25] mailto:rubensk@nic.br [26] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icannorg [27] mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com [28] mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com [29] mailto:rubensk@nic.br [30] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [31] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [32] mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com [33] mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com [34] mailto:rubensk@nic.br [35] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [36] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [37] mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com [38] mailto:rubensk@nic.br [39] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [40] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [41] mailto:rubensk@nic.br [42] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [43] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [44] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icannorg [45] mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com [46] mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com [47] mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com [48] mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org [49] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [50] mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com [51] mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com [52] mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org [53] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [54] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [55] mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com [56] mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com [57] mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org [58] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [59] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [60] mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com [61] mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org [62] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [63] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [64] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [65] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [66] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu... [67] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu... [68] https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro... [69] https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro... [70] https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw [71] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu... [72] https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report [73] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1blgQjzh_vR7WQ1utsqBnHDb8_b2DD7IDQu-b... [74] http://www.icann.org/ [75] mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [76] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg [77] https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [78] https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos

Dear WG, While “voluntary commitments” sounds positive on first view – they could serve as something that would trigger community members to object (had they been known initially). Example being a .makeup gTLD that all of a sudden “voluntary commits” to only allow bloggers that promote the applicant’s products to own domains. It’s a voluntary restriction – but one that would be met with fierce objections. Or we have to redefine what a “commitment” is. Do commitments have to serve the program goal of “public interest”? Or is any restriction a “commitment”? Have we clarified whether or not the new gTLD program is bound to a “public interest goal”? If we don’t clarify then we will always run into interpretation issues. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Donnerstag, 16. Juli 2020 21:49 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>; Aikman-Scalese Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Kathy, I disagree. IT was always understood that Applicants could make voluntary commitments at any point in time so long as they were all subject to public comment and everything else in the Application Change section. That has always been the case. It doesn’t make sense to not allow any changes after an application is submitted especially since applications could sit in the queue for months if not years. This is not something I have created with my pen. I was trying to clarify the language that Anne had an issue with. Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: <mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> jeff@jjnsolutions.com http://jjnsolutions.com From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 2:28 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com <mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> >; Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> >; Aikman-Scalese Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> >; Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com <mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com> >; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Jeff, you have reversed months of discussion and negotiation with one fell swoop of your pen. I object- this was not the agreement. Best, Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Neuman" <jeff@jjnsolutions.com <mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> > To: "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> >, "Aikman-Scalese Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> >, "Jamie Baxter" <jbaxter@spimarketing.com <mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com> >, "Rubens Kuhl" <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Cc: Sent: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:35:30 +0000 Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 I don’t understand your concern Kathy. All proposed RVCs will be put out for comment. I don’t see the issue a Registry for a TLD wanting to add voluntary obligations for it to follow (contractually enforced). Example, Applicant proposes .crypto and submits its application. After submitting the application, applicant is approached by the American Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Association who expresses a concern that the Applicant has not agreed to follow the CryptoCurrency Security Standard in its application. Applicant realizes its mistake or realizes it would be better to include those in its application, so it files an Application Change request to commit to an additional RVC. What’s wrong with that? Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: <mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> jeff@jjnsolutions.com http://jjnsolutions.com From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 1:17 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com <mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> >; Aikman-Scalese Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> >; Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com <mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com> >; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 << or for any other reason the applicant desires to make additional commitments.>> Disagree, Jeff, We expressly did not choose this language earlier. We agreed RVCs would be driven by comments, particularly from the GAC, would go through public comment processes, etc. It is not designed for an individual registry applicant to do anything it "desires." The applicant had the chance to submit anything it desired with the original application -- at this latter point in the process, the Community is engaged in a process of responding to that original submission. I strongly object to this line. Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Neuman" <jeff@jjnsolutions.com <mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> > To: "Aikman-Scalese Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> >, "Jamie Baxter" <jbaxter@spimarketing.com <mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com> >, "Rubens Kuhl" <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Cc: Sent: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 16:32:05 +0000 Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 I am trying to distill all of these emails from the last 24 hours and here are my thoughts. 1. The text in the existing Applicant Guidebook states: “A formal objection can be filed only on four enumerated grounds, as described in this module. A formal objection initiates a dispute resolution proceeding.” Thus using the term “formal” does make sense in Section 2.3.2 Recommendation XX (Rationale 4). It does not make sense to include the word “informal” there because it creates a category of objections that does not exist. 2. Why don’t we just state something like: “ICANN must allow applicants to submit Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs)(previously called voluntary PICs) in subsequent rounds in their applications and/or to respond to public comments, objections, GAC Early Warnings, GAC Consensus Advice, or for any other reason the applicant desires to make additional commitments. The point of that language was to use as an example, but it was not intended to be a limited list. Plus, when combined with the language Steve quoted, there is no doubt that all RVCs are subject to public comment (whether they are in the initial application) or submitted as an Application Change. Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: <mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> jeff@jjnsolutions.com http://jjnsolutions.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 10:26 AM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com <mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com> >; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 No – that’s the issue I am raising. All the changes to “formal objection” in the Objections section raise questions about the various references to “objections” in both the RVC section and the Application Change Request section. Those sections talk about “objections”. I did not see a prohibition on adopting RVCs in response to private negotiations with a party that is threatening to file an Objection. If we are permitting an RVC to be adopted during a private negotiation process, the RVC should be subject to public comment. If we are prohibiting adoption of an RVC to resolve a dispute before it gets to the formal Objection phase, then I am also fine with that. I am not fine with RVCs being adopted in private negotiations with that potentially not being subject to public comment. This is not at all clear in the document. We make reference to “formal objections” in the Objections section and just use the word “objections” in the RVC and Application Change Request section. We do not make any references to an RVC adopted pursuant to private negotiation before an Objection is filed. If we are going to allow those, it needs to be clear and it also needs to be clear that they are subject to public comment If we are not going to allow that kind of private resolution, that has to be clear from the document. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com <mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com> > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 7:16 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> >; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne And I don’t disagree with your concerns, however I thought Steve had pointed to where in the language your concern was covered. No? Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > Date: Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 10:04 AM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com <mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com> >, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Jamie, I don’t disagree with any of what you have said below. I am only saying that the document now creates the possibility that someone can argue that an RVC adopted in response to private negotiations (as opposed to the currently listed mechanisms) would not be viewed as an application change request requiring public comment. It is certainly not my purpose to “create” an informal objection. My purpose is to clarify that any RVC adopted to resolve a potential dispute (not just formal objection) should trigger an application change request process that requires public comment. Perhaps I have used the wrong language to try to accomplish that but it seems to me that once we say that Application Change Request with public comment only applies where there is a “formal objection”, then you have created a big loophole to transparency. Not intending to create a new category, just recognizing that private parties may approach each other and negotiate and the outcome could be a “settlement” that results in an RVC and that should always be subject to public comment. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com <mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com> > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 6:56 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> >; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icannorg> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne I think my point may have been missed so I’ll try again. Currently there are public comments and there are objections (formal objections). These are two clearly defined periods for comment and opposition to be expressed by those reviewing applications (minus any GAC processes). Each of these have clearly defined procedures and timelines associated with them as noted in the 2012 AGB, creating transparency and predictability for all. If someone is interested in expressing comment or opposition about an application they are required to do so within those confines (minus GAC). This makes it a fair playing field for all applicants, including community applicants. In the 2012 round, people expressed comment and opposition outside of those confines and ICANN took no steps to enforce the AGB rules or prevent that comment or opposition from impacting the application and evaluation process. This diminished any transparency and predictability that was promised to applicants, and it was in contradiction to what the AGB provided for comment and oppostion. For standard applicants, any comment or opposition expressed after initial evaluation and “formal” objections were completed had no further impact, however for community applicants, ICANN’s miscarriage of the AGB rules had a direct impact on CPE scoring because of gaming. There is no such thing as informal objection in the AGB (as Steve Chan has confirmed), and I do not believe we should be creating such a thing. There are clearly defined times to submit public comment (for free) and there are clearly defined times to challenge applications via the objection process (at a cost). We should not be striping the transparency and predictability out of the process for applicants by allowing an undefined new category of “informal objection” that has no time limit or constraint. As I have pointed out on multiple occasion, all applicants should be treated equally in the process, but community applicants were not in the 2012 round, leaving them subject to an ICANN imposed additional period for people to game them in CPE by going after criteria 4 scoring Hopefully that clarifies. Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 8:08 PM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com <mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com> >, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Hi Jamie – I think transparency is the issue. If the new language says that RVCs that are adopted in response to a “formal” objection require public comment, then that language, in and of itself, creates a category of objection that is “not formal”. That could easily be a call or a letter from some party that says, “If you don’t adopt the following RVC, we are going to file an objection.” In that case, the RVC that is adopted should also be subject to an Application Change Request and public comment. A private “threat” like that would not be a matter of public comment. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com <mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com> > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 4:01 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrccom <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> >; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne I would venture to argue that informal objection is technically “public comment.” I do not support creating an undefined category of application input/intervention called “informal objection” that has no specific rules or timeline for submission. This does not add transparency to the process or predictability for applicants. Public comment and formal objections already have clearly defined rules and timelines. I continue to believe it was a miscarriage of the AGB to allow “letters of opposition” (a.k.a informal objection) to be accepted years after the public comment period was closed and the formal objection period was complete. There was certainly no reference in the AGB that this would be allowed or acceptable. It was ultimately a successful gaming tactic used against community applicants. Community applicants deserve the same level of predictability as all other applicants. Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 6:21 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Section 2.3.2 on RVCs and PICs says in Recommendation xx (Rationale 4) that ICANN MUST allow RVCs to be added after the application submission date in order to respond to public comments, objection, GAC Early Warnings, and/or GAC Consensus Advice. So obviously RVCs can be adopted in a context other than “formal objection”. That section then refers us to the Application Change Request section. Thus, in Section 2.4 Application Change Requests, it appears we may have to amend the following language in a. Recommendation xx (rationale 2): ICANN org must document the types of changes which are required to be posted for public comment and which are not required to be posted for public comment The following is a non-exhaustive list of changes that must require public comment: * The addition of Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections (whether formal or informal), GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings * Changes to Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections, GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings * Changes associated with the formation of joint ventures (see Recommendation xx below) From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:53 PM To: 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Right Rubens – just looking for the language that confirms that because the section on Objections now says in d. that this applies where RVCs are adopted in response to concerns raised in a FORMAL objection. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:49 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 My take is that unless the RVC is already filed in the application, when it will be subject by comments as all applications, will trigger application change request which includes public comments. Why would that not be so ? Rubens On 15 Jul 2020, at 18:38, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > wrote: Thanks Jamie. I’m looking for the language in the draft Final Report that confirms your understanding. As mentioned below, Subsection d. has some added language stating that RVCs adopted in response to “concerns raised in a formal objection” will be considered application changes. Maybe Jeff or staff can advise where we would find that RVCs adopted in response to concerns expressed by a party that has not yet filed such “formal objection” would also be subject to application change request and public comment. (It may be in the section on Registry Voluntary Commitments”, but I am just looking for confirmation that all RVCs, regardless of the stage in which they are proposed to address concerns, trigger application change request procedures and public comment on the RVCs. Anne From: Jamie Baxter < <mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com> jbaxter@spimarketing.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:34 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne < <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com>; Emily Barabas < <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> emily.barabas@icann.org>; <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne I do not believe that all informal objection is weighted equally (or at the level of formal objection) – at least that was our experience in the 2012 round – therefore not all informal objection necessarily invokes an application change request. That said, I do see opportunities where informal objection may invoke an application change request, such as in CPE to address a “letter of objection” targeting points in criteria 4. It has been my understanding that any application change request that extends beyond administrative adjustments to an application goes out for public comment – which I believe is the catch net to address your concerns below. I have never assumed that change requests stemming from informal objection are exempt from public comment. Do I understand that correctly? Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" < <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 5:07 PM To: Jamie Baxter < <mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com> jbaxter@spimarketing.com>, Emily Barabas < <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> emily.barabas@icann.org>, " <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Yes – Jamie – that would be my understanding. The question posed relates to the fact that the later paragraph says that RVCs developed in response to a “formal objection” invoke an application change request and require public comment. I hope we have not inadvertently created an exception to this requirement in relation to RVCs adopted in response to an “informal” objection. Anne From: Jamie Baxter < <mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com> jbaxter@spimarketing.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:29 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne < <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com>; Emily Barabas < <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> emily.barabas@icann.org>; <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne My interpretation of “formal objection” would be those that are paid for via a dispute resolution provider, not to be confused with any other objection expressed in public comment or other format, including the ICANN correspondence page. Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg < <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" < <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 4:19 PM To: Emily Barabas < <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> emily.barabas@icann.org>, " <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icannorg> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 On Package 6, please see below: 1. re 2.6.1 re “Application Queuing”, the language shown below should be modified because the previous section is drafted as “more than 125” and the section below is drafted as “less than 125”. Language should be revised does not cover what happens if you get exactly 125 IDN applications: * * * If there are (delete “less than”) 125 or fewer applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be assigned priority numbersprocessed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application. 2. Section 2.8.1 – Objections I don’t understand why we would remove affirmations of Recommendation 2 and Recommendation 3 from this section. The fact that these Affirmations are affirmed elsewhere in the report does not change their relevance in relation to the subject of Objections. Please clarify whether these Affirmations are “in” or “out.” They don’t appear to be deleted but there are comments on the side saying they should be. Recommendation xx (rationale 3) Throughout this rationale, the word, “formal” has been inserted in front of the word, “objection”. What is the meaning/need for the insertion of “formal” before “objection”? Is there a thought that there are “informal” objection processes? This language also appears in Rationale 6 and there are NUMEROUS insertions of this reference in the Section on Deliberations. Is there some intended effect here with respect to Subsection d. which specifies that a change in Registry Voluntary Commitments that is made in response to a “formal objection” invokes an application change process? Is the idea that if there are RVCs that are agreed OUTSIDE the “formal objection” process (i.e. via an “informal” objection), those RVCs are somehow NOT subject to an application change process and related public comment? I thought we had established that all new RVCs need to be subject to an application change process and public comment. 3. Section 2.9.1 Community Applications – Subsection c. “New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable.” Thanks for deleting the reference to the conclusion that the IRT should be the body that determines any needed changes to the CPE Guidelines. However, what was discussed when the “can’t live with” comments were reviewed is that there is a need to specify that the WG is seeking public comment on the CPE Guidelines. We should be specifying at this point in the text that we are seeking that comment and we should provide the link at this same point in the text so that we call attention to the request for public comment on the CPE Guidelines (but not the scoring.) Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg < <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 10:44 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] Dear all, The following are now available for your review in the <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...> production document. The deadline for comments is Wednesday 15 July at 23:59 UTC 1. Package 7 sections of the Report are now ready for “Can’t Live With” review (beginning on <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...> page 148): * Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. * Package 7 includes two report sections: * * * 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed on <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> 11 June) - For this section, please limit “Can’t Live With” comments to the new text in the section, which is displayed in black. The text in grey has already gone through “Can’t Live With” review as part of an earlier package. * 2.3.2 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) / Public Interest Commitments (PICs) (last discussed on <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> 18 June) * Comments will be tracked <https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw> here. 2. Package 6 revisions of the report, now ready for a final check (beginning on <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...> page 118): * Please limit feedback to errors in the edits, for example a revision that you believe does not accurately reflect the outcome of discussions about a “Can’t Live With” item. * Please send this type of feedback to the mailing list. Typo corrections can be sent directly to staff. * For package 6 sections, please do not raise new issues, introduce new “Can’t Live With” items, or re-open deliberations. * A high-level summary of the “Can’t Live With” input received is available <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report> here. And a detailed log with the outcomes from the WG’s consideration of that input is available <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1blgQjzh_vR7WQ1utsqBnHDb8_b2DD7IDQu-b...> here. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 <http://www.icann.org/> www.icann.org This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C §2510-2521. 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. 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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. 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 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. 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. 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 US.C. §2510-2521.

I probably should have checked the bylaws more closely before hitting send but at least I am doing so now. I see that public interest is included in the bylaws in particular in Section 1.2(b). So I guess the real question is what is in the public interest and how is this ascertained – i.e. if things in the new gTLD program (or the program itself generally) must be in the public interest, what does that mean? think it should be more evidence-based than theoretical and opinion-based but I guess that is up for debate. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | http://www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> [Greenberg Traurig] From: Trachtenberg, Marc H. (Shld-Chi-IP-Tech) Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 8:46 AM To: 'alexander@schubert.berlin' <alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Alex or somebody please point me to where in ICANN’s mission or bylaws or other Board decision it says that the new gTLD program must be in the public interest. I am not aware of any formal reference to this other than from the GAC specifically in reference to closed generics. If this public interest mandate you keep raising doesn’t exist anywhere else than creating it is far outside the scope of this group and we should shut off discussion on it except with regard to closed generics so that it cannot keep being introduced as an obstacle to progress. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | http://www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> [Greenberg Traurig] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 7:52 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 *EXTERNAL TO GT* Dear WG, While “voluntary commitments” sounds positive on first view – they could serve as something that would trigger community members to object (had they been known initially). Example being a .makeup gTLD that all of a sudden “voluntary commits” to only allow bloggers that promote the applicant’s products to own domains. It’s a voluntary restriction – but one that would be met with fierce objections. Or we have to redefine what a “commitment” is. Do commitments have to serve the program goal of “public interest”? Or is any restriction a “commitment”? Have we clarified whether or not the new gTLD program is bound to a “public interest goal”? If we don’t clarify then we will always run into interpretation issues. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Donnerstag, 16. Juli 2020 21:49 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; Aikman-Scalese Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Kathy, I disagree. IT was always understood that Applicants could make voluntary commitments at any point in time so long as they were all subject to public comment and everything else in the Application Change section. That has always been the case. It doesn’t make sense to not allow any changes after an application is submitted especially since applications could sit in the queue for months if not years. This is not something I have created with my pen. I was trying to clarify the language that Anne had an issue with. [cid:image003.png@01D65C22.44CE9100] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!WO6_oWSAX... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!XHB7hsRXdY...> From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 2:28 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; Aikman-Scalese Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Jeff, you have reversed months of discussion and negotiation with one fell swoop of your pen. I object- this was not the agreement. Best, Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Neuman" <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> To: "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, "Jamie Baxter" <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, "Rubens Kuhl" <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Cc: Sent: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:35:30 +0000 Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 I don’t understand your concern Kathy. All proposed RVCs will be put out for comment. I don’t see the issue a Registry for a TLD wanting to add voluntary obligations for it to follow (contractually enforced). Example, Applicant proposes .crypto and submits its application. After submitting the application, applicant is approached by the American Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Association who expresses a concern that the Applicant has not agreed to follow the CryptoCurrency Security Standard in its application. Applicant realizes its mistake or realizes it would be better to include those in its application, so it files an Application Change request to commit to an additional RVC. What’s wrong with that? Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!WO6_oWSAX... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!XHB7hsRXdY...> From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 1:17 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Aikman-Scalese Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 << or for any other reason the applicant desires to make additional commitments.>> Disagree, Jeff, We expressly did not choose this language earlier. We agreed RVCs would be driven by comments, particularly from the GAC, would go through public comment processes, etc. It is not designed for an individual registry applicant to do anything it "desires." The applicant had the chance to submit anything it desired with the original application -- at this latter point in the process, the Community is engaged in a process of responding to that original submission. I strongly object to this line. Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Neuman" <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> To: "Aikman-Scalese Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, "Jamie Baxter" <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, "Rubens Kuhl" <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Cc: Sent: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 16:32:05 +0000 Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 I am trying to distill all of these emails from the last 24 hours and here are my thoughts. 1. The text in the existing Applicant Guidebook states: “A formal objection can be filed only on four enumerated grounds, as described in this module. A formal objection initiates a dispute resolution proceeding.” Thus using the term “formal” does make sense in Section 2.3.2 Recommendation XX (Rationale 4). It does not make sense to include the word “informal” there because it creates a category of objections that does not exist. 1. Why don’t we just state something like: “ICANN must allow applicants to submit Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs)(previously called voluntary PICs) in subsequent rounds in their applications and/or to respond to public comments, objections, GAC Early Warnings, GAC Consensus Advice, or for any other reason the applicant desires to make additional commitments. The point of that language was to use as an example, but it was not intended to be a limited list. Plus, when combined with the language Steve quoted, there is no doubt that all RVCs are subject to public comment (whether they are in the initial application) or submitted as an Application Change. Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!WO6_oWSAX... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!XHB7hsRXdY...> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 10:26 AM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 No – that’s the issue I am raising. All the changes to “formal objection” in the Objections section raise questions about the various references to “objections” in both the RVC section and the Application Change Request section. Those sections talk about “objections”. I did not see a prohibition on adopting RVCs in response to private negotiations with a party that is threatening to file an Objection. If we are permitting an RVC to be adopted during a private negotiation process, the RVC should be subject to public comment. If we are prohibiting adoption of an RVC to resolve a dispute before it gets to the formal Objection phase, then I am also fine with that. I am not fine with RVCs being adopted in private negotiations with that potentially not being subject to public comment. This is not at all clear in the document. We make reference to “formal objections” in the Objections section and just use the word “objections” in the RVC and Application Change Request section. We do not make any references to an RVC adopted pursuant to private negotiation before an Objection is filed. If we are going to allow those, it needs to be clear and it also needs to be clear that they are subject to public comment If we are not going to allow that kind of private resolution, that has to be clear from the document. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 7:16 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne And I don’t disagree with your concerns, however I thought Steve had pointed to where in the language your concern was covered. No? Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 10:04 AM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Jamie, I don’t disagree with any of what you have said below. I am only saying that the document now creates the possibility that someone can argue that an RVC adopted in response to private negotiations (as opposed to the currently listed mechanisms) would not be viewed as an application change request requiring public comment. It is certainly not my purpose to “create” an informal objection. My purpose is to clarify that any RVC adopted to resolve a potential dispute (not just formal objection) should trigger an application change request process that requires public comment. Perhaps I have used the wrong language to try to accomplish that but it seems to me that once we say that Application Change Request with public comment only applies where there is a “formal objection”, then you have created a big loophole to transparency. Not intending to create a new category, just recognizing that private parties may approach each other and negotiate and the outcome could be a “settlement” that results in an RVC and that should always be subject to public comment. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 6:56 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icannorg> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne I think my point may have been missed so I’ll try again. Currently there are public comments and there are objections (formal objections). These are two clearly defined periods for comment and opposition to be expressed by those reviewing applications (minus any GAC processes). Each of these have clearly defined procedures and timelines associated with them as noted in the 2012 AGB, creating transparency and predictability for all. If someone is interested in expressing comment or opposition about an application they are required to do so within those confines (minus GAC). This makes it a fair playing field for all applicants, including community applicants. In the 2012 round, people expressed comment and opposition outside of those confines and ICANN took no steps to enforce the AGB rules or prevent that comment or opposition from impacting the application and evaluation process. This diminished any transparency and predictability that was promised to applicants, and it was in contradiction to what the AGB provided for comment and oppostion. For standard applicants, any comment or opposition expressed after initial evaluation and “formal” objections were completed had no further impact, however for community applicants, ICANN’s miscarriage of the AGB rules had a direct impact on CPE scoring because of gaming. There is no such thing as informal objection in the AGB (as Steve Chan has confirmed), and I do not believe we should be creating such a thing. There are clearly defined times to submit public comment (for free) and there are clearly defined times to challenge applications via the objection process (at a cost). We should not be striping the transparency and predictability out of the process for applicants by allowing an undefined new category of “informal objection” that has no time limit or constraint. As I have pointed out on multiple occasion, all applicants should be treated equally in the process, but community applicants were not in the 2012 round, leaving them subject to an ICANN imposed additional period for people to game them in CPE by going after criteria 4 scoring Hopefully that clarifies. Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 8:08 PM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Hi Jamie – I think transparency is the issue. If the new language says that RVCs that are adopted in response to a “formal” objection require public comment, then that language, in and of itself, creates a category of objection that is “not formal”. That could easily be a call or a letter from some party that says, “If you don’t adopt the following RVC, we are going to file an objection.” In that case, the RVC that is adopted should also be subject to an Application Change Request and public comment. A private “threat” like that would not be a matter of public comment. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 4:01 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrccom<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne I would venture to argue that informal objection is technically “public comment.” I do not support creating an undefined category of application input/intervention called “informal objection” that has no specific rules or timeline for submission. This does not add transparency to the process or predictability for applicants. Public comment and formal objections already have clearly defined rules and timelines. I continue to believe it was a miscarriage of the AGB to allow “letters of opposition” (a.k.a informal objection) to be accepted years after the public comment period was closed and the formal objection period was complete. There was certainly no reference in the AGB that this would be allowed or acceptable. It was ultimately a successful gaming tactic used against community applicants. Community applicants deserve the same level of predictability as all other applicants. Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 6:21 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Section 2.3.2 on RVCs and PICs says in Recommendation xx (Rationale 4) that ICANN MUST allow RVCs to be added after the application submission date in order to respond to public comments, objection, GAC Early Warnings, and/or GAC Consensus Advice. So obviously RVCs can be adopted in a context other than “formal objection”. That section then refers us to the Application Change Request section. Thus, in Section 2.4 Application Change Requests, it appears we may have to amend the following language in a. Recommendation xx (rationale 2): ICANN org must document the types of changes which are required to be posted for public comment and which are not required to be posted for public comment The following is a non-exhaustive list of changes that must require public comment: * The addition of Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections (whether formal or informal), GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings * Changes to Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections, GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings * Changes associated with the formation of joint ventures (see Recommendation xx below) From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:53 PM To: 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Right Rubens – just looking for the language that confirms that because the section on Objections now says in d. that this applies where RVCs are adopted in response to concerns raised in a FORMAL objection. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:49 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 My take is that unless the RVC is already filed in the application, when it will be subject by comments as all applications, will trigger application change request which includes public comments. Why would that not be so ? Rubens On 15 Jul 2020, at 18:38, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Thanks Jamie. I’m looking for the language in the draft Final Report that confirms your understanding. As mentioned below, Subsection d. has some added language stating that RVCs adopted in response to “concerns raised in a formal objection” will be considered application changes. Maybe Jeff or staff can advise where we would find that RVCs adopted in response to concerns expressed by a party that has not yet filed such “formal objection” would also be subject to application change request and public comment. (It may be in the section on Registry Voluntary Commitments”, but I am just looking for confirmation that all RVCs, regardless of the stage in which they are proposed to address concerns, trigger application change request procedures and public comment on the RVCs. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:34 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne I do not believe that all informal objection is weighted equally (or at the level of formal objection) – at least that was our experience in the 2012 round – therefore not all informal objection necessarily invokes an application change request. That said, I do see opportunities where informal objection may invoke an application change request, such as in CPE to address a “letter of objection” targeting points in criteria 4. It has been my understanding that any application change request that extends beyond administrative adjustments to an application goes out for public comment – which I believe is the catch net to address your concerns below. I have never assumed that change requests stemming from informal objection are exempt from public comment. Do I understand that correctly? Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 5:07 PM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Yes – Jamie – that would be my understanding. The question posed relates to the fact that the later paragraph says that RVCs developed in response to a “formal objection” invoke an application change request and require public comment. I hope we have not inadvertently created an exception to this requirement in relation to RVCs adopted in response to an “informal” objection. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:29 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne My interpretation of “formal objection” would be those that are paid for via a dispute resolution provider, not to be confused with any other objection expressed in public comment or other format, including the ICANN correspondence page. Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 4:19 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icannorg<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 On Package 6, please see below: 1. re 2.6.1 re “Application Queuing”, the language shown below should be modified because the previous section is drafted as “more than 125” and the section below is drafted as “less than 125”. Language should be revised does not cover what happens if you get exactly 125 IDN applications: • · * If there are (delete “less than”) 125 or fewer applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be assigned priority numbersprocessed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application. 2. Section 2.8.1 – Objections I don’t understand why we would remove affirmations of Recommendation 2 and Recommendation 3 from this section. The fact that these Affirmations are affirmed elsewhere in the report does not change their relevance in relation to the subject of Objections. Please clarify whether these Affirmations are “in” or “out.” They don’t appear to be deleted but there are comments on the side saying they should be. Recommendation xx (rationale 3) Throughout this rationale, the word, “formal” has been inserted in front of the word, “objection”. What is the meaning/need for the insertion of “formal” before “objection”? Is there a thought that there are “informal” objection processes? This language also appears in Rationale 6 and there are NUMEROUS insertions of this reference in the Section on Deliberations. Is there some intended effect here with respect to Subsection d. which specifies that a change in Registry Voluntary Commitments that is made in response to a “formal objection” invokes an application change process? Is the idea that if there are RVCs that are agreed OUTSIDE the “formal objection” process (i.e. via an “informal” objection), those RVCs are somehow NOT subject to an application change process and related public comment? I thought we had established that all new RVCs need to be subject to an application change process and public comment. 3. Section 2.9.1 Community Applications – Subsection c. “New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable.” Thanks for deleting the reference to the conclusion that the IRT should be the body that determines any needed changes to the CPE Guidelines. However, what was discussed when the “can’t live with” comments were reviewed is that there is a need to specify that the WG is seeking public comment on the CPE Guidelines. We should be specifying at this point in the text that we are seeking that comment and we should provide the link at this same point in the text so that we call attention to the request for public comment on the CPE Guidelines (but not the scoring.) Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 10:44 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] Dear all, The following are now available for your review in the production document<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91...>. The deadline for comments is Wednesday 15 July at 23:59 UTC 1. Package 7 sections of the Report are now ready for “Can’t Live With” review (beginning on page 148<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91...>): * Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. * Package 7 includes two report sections: • · * 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed on 11 June<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06...>) - For this section, please limit “Can’t Live With” comments to the new text in the section, which is displayed in black. The text in grey has already gone through “Can’t Live With” review as part of an earlier package. * 2.3.2 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) / Public Interest Commitments (PICs) (last discussed on 18 June<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06...>) * Comments will be tracked here<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw__;!!DUT_TFPx...>. 1. Package 6 revisions of the report, now ready for a final check (beginning on page 118<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91...>): * Please limit feedback to errors in the edits, for example a revision that you believe does not accurately reflect the outcome of discussions about a “Can’t Live With” item. * Please send this type of feedback to the mailing list. Typo corrections can be sent directly to staff. * For package 6 sections, please do not raise new issues, introduce new “Can’t Live With” items, or re-open deliberations. * A high-level summary of the “Can’t Live With” input received is available here<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.*Draf...>. And a detailed log with the outcomes from the WG’s consideration of that input is available here<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1blgQjzh_v...>. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.icann.org__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!WO6_oWSAX8W7... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.icann.org/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!XHB7hsRXdYVb...> 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. 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. 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgt... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtl...> _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFP... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPx...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!...>). 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. 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 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. 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. 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 US.C. §2510-2521. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.

Another question is whether just the program in general must be in the public interest or whether every single aspect does. If every aspect then arguably every restriction on registration in a TLD that diverts from a fully open TLD with no registration restrictions must be in the public interest and justified as such. I think the latter doesn’t make much sense and is not manageable and that it is thus the former – that the program more generally must be in the public interest. On this assumption I don’t think that every restriction on registration in a TLD that diverts from a fully open TLD with no registration restrictions must specifically be in the public interest and think the same for closed generics. That said, I think there is also an argument that closed generics generally can be in the public interest and that they Introduce competition in the registration of domain names, albeit not in the traditional sense of just higher volumes of registrations but potentially in higher quality registrations. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | http://www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> [Greenberg Traurig] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 5:16 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Dear Marc, Thank you very much. You are a good soul in bringing this up yourselves. Thank you. I went through the document (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/...>) running a search for “public interest” – and it came up 10 times. For us probably most imperative (all caps by the original author): Section 1.2. COMMITMENTS AND CORE VALUES (b) CORE VALUES (ii) Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making to ensure that the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to ascertain the global public interest and that those processes are accountable and transparent; (iv) Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial to the public interest as identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process; Especially Section 1.2 (b)(iv): “Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial to the public interest…” I guess that’s what the new gTLD program was about: “Introducing ….. competition in the registration of domain names”. That’s the new gTLD program mission. It says that such introduction of competition should be done where it is beneficial to the public interest. Hence my lamenting since days: Let’s define how this binds the new gTLD program to a public interest goal: and what that exactly means. Is this clarification a task this group would be authorized to do? Or would that be the GNSO Council? Board? I think it would be strange if a legislative body provides itself with marching orders. And the guiding we need is: is a public interest goal included in our marching orders (obviously not explicitly – but probably implicitly). If the bylaws are the constitution then we almost need a Supreme Court Decision. Who within ICANN acts as the Supreme Court? Or is that analogy inappropriate? And Marc: thanks again. Very good spirit. Thanks, Alexander From: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> [mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com] Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 6:14 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 I probably should have checked the bylaws more closely before hitting send but at least I am doing so now. I see that public interest is included in the bylaws in particular in Section 1.2(b). So I guess the real question is what is in the public interest and how is this ascertained – i.e. if things in the new gTLD program (or the program itself generally) must be in the public interest, what does that mean? think it should be more evidence-based than theoretical and opinion-based but I guess that is up for debate. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | http://www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> [Greenberg Traurig] From: Trachtenberg, Marc H. (Shld-Chi-IP-Tech) Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 8:46 AM To: 'alexander@schubert.berlin' <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Alex or somebody please point me to where in ICANN’s mission or bylaws or other Board decision it says that the new gTLD program must be in the public interest. I am not aware of any formal reference to this other than from the GAC specifically in reference to closed generics. If this public interest mandate you keep raising doesn’t exist anywhere else than creating it is far outside the scope of this group and we should shut off discussion on it except with regard to closed generics so that it cannot keep being introduced as an obstacle to progress. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | http://www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> [Greenberg Traurig] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 7:52 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 *EXTERNAL TO GT* Dear WG, While “voluntary commitments” sounds positive on first view – they could serve as something that would trigger community members to object (had they been known initially). Example being a .makeup gTLD that all of a sudden “voluntary commits” to only allow bloggers that promote the applicant’s products to own domains. It’s a voluntary restriction – but one that would be met with fierce objections. Or we have to redefine what a “commitment” is. Do commitments have to serve the program goal of “public interest”? Or is any restriction a “commitment”? Have we clarified whether or not the new gTLD program is bound to a “public interest goal”? If we don’t clarify then we will always run into interpretation issues. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Donnerstag, 16. Juli 2020 21:49 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; Aikman-Scalese Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Kathy, I disagree. IT was always understood that Applicants could make voluntary commitments at any point in time so long as they were all subject to public comment and everything else in the Application Change section. That has always been the case. It doesn’t make sense to not allow any changes after an application is submitted especially since applications could sit in the queue for months if not years. This is not something I have created with my pen. I was trying to clarify the language that Anne had an issue with. [cid:image003.png@01D65DDB.67061080] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!RtqBUaHk2... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!XHB7hsRXdY...> From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 2:28 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; Aikman-Scalese Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Jeff, you have reversed months of discussion and negotiation with one fell swoop of your pen. I object- this was not the agreement. Best, Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Neuman" <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> To: "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, "Jamie Baxter" <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, "Rubens Kuhl" <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Cc: Sent: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:35:30 +0000 Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 I don’t understand your concern Kathy. All proposed RVCs will be put out for comment. I don’t see the issue a Registry for a TLD wanting to add voluntary obligations for it to follow (contractually enforced). Example, Applicant proposes .crypto and submits its application. After submitting the application, applicant is approached by the American Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Association who expresses a concern that the Applicant has not agreed to follow the CryptoCurrency Security Standard in its application. Applicant realizes its mistake or realizes it would be better to include those in its application, so it files an Application Change request to commit to an additional RVC. What’s wrong with that? Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!RtqBUaHk2... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!XHB7hsRXdY...> From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 1:17 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Aikman-Scalese Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 << or for any other reason the applicant desires to make additional commitments.>> Disagree, Jeff, We expressly did not choose this language earlier. We agreed RVCs would be driven by comments, particularly from the GAC, would go through public comment processes, etc. It is not designed for an individual registry applicant to do anything it "desires." The applicant had the chance to submit anything it desired with the original application -- at this latter point in the process, the Community is engaged in a process of responding to that original submission. I strongly object to this line. Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Neuman" <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> To: "Aikman-Scalese Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, "Jamie Baxter" <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, "Rubens Kuhl" <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Cc: Sent: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 16:32:05 +0000 Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 I am trying to distill all of these emails from the last 24 hours and here are my thoughts. 1. The text in the existing Applicant Guidebook states: “A formal objection can be filed only on four enumerated grounds, as described in this module. A formal objection initiates a dispute resolution proceeding.” Thus using the term “formal” does make sense in Section 2.3.2 Recommendation XX (Rationale 4). It does not make sense to include the word “informal” there because it creates a category of objections that does not exist. 1. Why don’t we just state something like: “ICANN must allow applicants to submit Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs)(previously called voluntary PICs) in subsequent rounds in their applications and/or to respond to public comments, objections, GAC Early Warnings, GAC Consensus Advice, or for any other reason the applicant desires to make additional commitments. The point of that language was to use as an example, but it was not intended to be a limited list. Plus, when combined with the language Steve quoted, there is no doubt that all RVCs are subject to public comment (whether they are in the initial application) or submitted as an Application Change. Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!RtqBUaHk2... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!XHB7hsRXdY...> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 10:26 AM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 No – that’s the issue I am raising. All the changes to “formal objection” in the Objections section raise questions about the various references to “objections” in both the RVC section and the Application Change Request section. Those sections talk about “objections”. I did not see a prohibition on adopting RVCs in response to private negotiations with a party that is threatening to file an Objection. If we are permitting an RVC to be adopted during a private negotiation process, the RVC should be subject to public comment. If we are prohibiting adoption of an RVC to resolve a dispute before it gets to the formal Objection phase, then I am also fine with that. I am not fine with RVCs being adopted in private negotiations with that potentially not being subject to public comment. This is not at all clear in the document. We make reference to “formal objections” in the Objections section and just use the word “objections” in the RVC and Application Change Request section. We do not make any references to an RVC adopted pursuant to private negotiation before an Objection is filed. If we are going to allow those, it needs to be clear and it also needs to be clear that they are subject to public comment If we are not going to allow that kind of private resolution, that has to be clear from the document. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 7:16 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne And I don’t disagree with your concerns, however I thought Steve had pointed to where in the language your concern was covered. No? Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 10:04 AM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Jamie, I don’t disagree with any of what you have said below. I am only saying that the document now creates the possibility that someone can argue that an RVC adopted in response to private negotiations (as opposed to the currently listed mechanisms) would not be viewed as an application change request requiring public comment. It is certainly not my purpose to “create” an informal objection. My purpose is to clarify that any RVC adopted to resolve a potential dispute (not just formal objection) should trigger an application change request process that requires public comment. Perhaps I have used the wrong language to try to accomplish that but it seems to me that once we say that Application Change Request with public comment only applies where there is a “formal objection”, then you have created a big loophole to transparency. Not intending to create a new category, just recognizing that private parties may approach each other and negotiate and the outcome could be a “settlement” that results in an RVC and that should always be subject to public comment. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 6:56 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icannorg> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne I think my point may have been missed so I’ll try again. Currently there are public comments and there are objections (formal objections). These are two clearly defined periods for comment and opposition to be expressed by those reviewing applications (minus any GAC processes). Each of these have clearly defined procedures and timelines associated with them as noted in the 2012 AGB, creating transparency and predictability for all. If someone is interested in expressing comment or opposition about an application they are required to do so within those confines (minus GAC). This makes it a fair playing field for all applicants, including community applicants. In the 2012 round, people expressed comment and opposition outside of those confines and ICANN took no steps to enforce the AGB rules or prevent that comment or opposition from impacting the application and evaluation process. This diminished any transparency and predictability that was promised to applicants, and it was in contradiction to what the AGB provided for comment and oppostion. For standard applicants, any comment or opposition expressed after initial evaluation and “formal” objections were completed had no further impact, however for community applicants, ICANN’s miscarriage of the AGB rules had a direct impact on CPE scoring because of gaming. There is no such thing as informal objection in the AGB (as Steve Chan has confirmed), and I do not believe we should be creating such a thing. There are clearly defined times to submit public comment (for free) and there are clearly defined times to challenge applications via the objection process (at a cost). We should not be striping the transparency and predictability out of the process for applicants by allowing an undefined new category of “informal objection” that has no time limit or constraint. As I have pointed out on multiple occasion, all applicants should be treated equally in the process, but community applicants were not in the 2012 round, leaving them subject to an ICANN imposed additional period for people to game them in CPE by going after criteria 4 scoring Hopefully that clarifies. Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 8:08 PM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Hi Jamie – I think transparency is the issue. If the new language says that RVCs that are adopted in response to a “formal” objection require public comment, then that language, in and of itself, creates a category of objection that is “not formal”. That could easily be a call or a letter from some party that says, “If you don’t adopt the following RVC, we are going to file an objection.” In that case, the RVC that is adopted should also be subject to an Application Change Request and public comment. A private “threat” like that would not be a matter of public comment. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 4:01 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrccom<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne I would venture to argue that informal objection is technically “public comment.” I do not support creating an undefined category of application input/intervention called “informal objection” that has no specific rules or timeline for submission. This does not add transparency to the process or predictability for applicants. Public comment and formal objections already have clearly defined rules and timelines. I continue to believe it was a miscarriage of the AGB to allow “letters of opposition” (a.k.a informal objection) to be accepted years after the public comment period was closed and the formal objection period was complete. There was certainly no reference in the AGB that this would be allowed or acceptable. It was ultimately a successful gaming tactic used against community applicants. Community applicants deserve the same level of predictability as all other applicants. Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 6:21 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Section 2.3.2 on RVCs and PICs says in Recommendation xx (Rationale 4) that ICANN MUST allow RVCs to be added after the application submission date in order to respond to public comments, objection, GAC Early Warnings, and/or GAC Consensus Advice. So obviously RVCs can be adopted in a context other than “formal objection”. That section then refers us to the Application Change Request section. Thus, in Section 2.4 Application Change Requests, it appears we may have to amend the following language in a. Recommendation xx (rationale 2): ICANN org must document the types of changes which are required to be posted for public comment and which are not required to be posted for public comment The following is a non-exhaustive list of changes that must require public comment: * The addition of Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections (whether formal or informal), GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings * Changes to Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections, GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings * Changes associated with the formation of joint ventures (see Recommendation xx below) From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:53 PM To: 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Right Rubens – just looking for the language that confirms that because the section on Objections now says in d. that this applies where RVCs are adopted in response to concerns raised in a FORMAL objection. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:49 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 My take is that unless the RVC is already filed in the application, when it will be subject by comments as all applications, will trigger application change request which includes public comments. Why would that not be so ? Rubens On 15 Jul 2020, at 18:38, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Thanks Jamie. I’m looking for the language in the draft Final Report that confirms your understanding. As mentioned below, Subsection d. has some added language stating that RVCs adopted in response to “concerns raised in a formal objection” will be considered application changes. Maybe Jeff or staff can advise where we would find that RVCs adopted in response to concerns expressed by a party that has not yet filed such “formal objection” would also be subject to application change request and public comment. (It may be in the section on Registry Voluntary Commitments”, but I am just looking for confirmation that all RVCs, regardless of the stage in which they are proposed to address concerns, trigger application change request procedures and public comment on the RVCs. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:34 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne I do not believe that all informal objection is weighted equally (or at the level of formal objection) – at least that was our experience in the 2012 round – therefore not all informal objection necessarily invokes an application change request. That said, I do see opportunities where informal objection may invoke an application change request, such as in CPE to address a “letter of objection” targeting points in criteria 4. It has been my understanding that any application change request that extends beyond administrative adjustments to an application goes out for public comment – which I believe is the catch net to address your concerns below. I have never assumed that change requests stemming from informal objection are exempt from public comment. Do I understand that correctly? Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 5:07 PM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Yes – Jamie – that would be my understanding. The question posed relates to the fact that the later paragraph says that RVCs developed in response to a “formal objection” invoke an application change request and require public comment. I hope we have not inadvertently created an exception to this requirement in relation to RVCs adopted in response to an “informal” objection. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:29 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne My interpretation of “formal objection” would be those that are paid for via a dispute resolution provider, not to be confused with any other objection expressed in public comment or other format, including the ICANN correspondence page. Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 4:19 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icannorg<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 On Package 6, please see below: 1. re 2.6.1 re “Application Queuing”, the language shown below should be modified because the previous section is drafted as “more than 125” and the section below is drafted as “less than 125”. Language should be revised does not cover what happens if you get exactly 125 IDN applications: • · * If there are (delete “less than”) 125 or fewer applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be assigned priority numbersprocessed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application. 2. Section 2.8.1 – Objections I don’t understand why we would remove affirmations of Recommendation 2 and Recommendation 3 from this section. The fact that these Affirmations are affirmed elsewhere in the report does not change their relevance in relation to the subject of Objections. Please clarify whether these Affirmations are “in” or “out.” They don’t appear to be deleted but there are comments on the side saying they should be. Recommendation xx (rationale 3) Throughout this rationale, the word, “formal” has been inserted in front of the word, “objection”. What is the meaning/need for the insertion of “formal” before “objection”? Is there a thought that there are “informal” objection processes? This language also appears in Rationale 6 and there are NUMEROUS insertions of this reference in the Section on Deliberations. Is there some intended effect here with respect to Subsection d. which specifies that a change in Registry Voluntary Commitments that is made in response to a “formal objection” invokes an application change process? Is the idea that if there are RVCs that are agreed OUTSIDE the “formal objection” process (i.e. via an “informal” objection), those RVCs are somehow NOT subject to an application change process and related public comment? I thought we had established that all new RVCs need to be subject to an application change process and public comment. 3. Section 2.9.1 Community Applications – Subsection c. “New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable.” Thanks for deleting the reference to the conclusion that the IRT should be the body that determines any needed changes to the CPE Guidelines. However, what was discussed when the “can’t live with” comments were reviewed is that there is a need to specify that the WG is seeking public comment on the CPE Guidelines. We should be specifying at this point in the text that we are seeking that comment and we should provide the link at this same point in the text so that we call attention to the request for public comment on the CPE Guidelines (but not the scoring.) Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 10:44 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] Dear all, The following are now available for your review in the production document<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91...>. The deadline for comments is Wednesday 15 July at 23:59 UTC 1. Package 7 sections of the Report are now ready for “Can’t Live With” review (beginning on page 148<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91...>): * Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. * Package 7 includes two report sections: • · * 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed on 11 June<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06...>) - For this section, please limit “Can’t Live With” comments to the new text in the section, which is displayed in black. The text in grey has already gone through “Can’t Live With” review as part of an earlier package. * 2.3.2 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) / Public Interest Commitments (PICs) (last discussed on 18 June<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06...>) * Comments will be tracked here<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw__;!!DUT_TFPx...>. 1. Package 6 revisions of the report, now ready for a final check (beginning on page 118<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91...>): * Please limit feedback to errors in the edits, for example a revision that you believe does not accurately reflect the outcome of discussions about a “Can’t Live With” item. * Please send this type of feedback to the mailing list. Typo corrections can be sent directly to staff. * For package 6 sections, please do not raise new issues, introduce new “Can’t Live With” items, or re-open deliberations. * A high-level summary of the “Can’t Live With” input received is available here<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.*Draf...>. And a detailed log with the outcomes from the WG’s consideration of that input is available here<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1blgQjzh_v...>. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.icann.org__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!RtqBUaHk2esW... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.icann.org/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!XHB7hsRXdYVb...> 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. 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. 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgt... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtl...> _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFP... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPx...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!...>). 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. 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 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. 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. 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 US.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate the information.

Jeff, The Application Change Request section does NOT say that all RVCs are subject to public comment. You would have to add your language below to that section – but only IF the WG agrees that private negotiation of RVCs is ok. (I can’t remember but Kathy has a different recollection of this.) Anne From: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 9:32 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ I am trying to distill all of these emails from the last 24 hours and here are my thoughts. 1. The text in the existing Applicant Guidebook states: “A formal objection can be filed only on four enumerated grounds, as described in this module. A formal objection initiates a dispute resolution proceeding.” Thus using the term “formal” does make sense in Section 2.3.2 Recommendation XX (Rationale 4). It does not make sense to include the word “informal” there because it creates a category of objections that does not exist. 1. Why don’t we just state something like: “ICANN must allow applicants to submit Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs)(previously called voluntary PICs) in subsequent rounds in their applications and/or to respond to public comments, objections, GAC Early Warnings, GAC Consensus Advice, or for any other reason the applicant desires to make additional commitments. The point of that language was to use as an example, but it was not intended to be a limited list. Plus, when combined with the language Steve quoted, there is no doubt that all RVCs are subject to public comment (whether they are in the initial application) or submitted as an Application Change. [cid:image002.png@01D65B5C.37270030] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 10:26 AM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 No – that’s the issue I am raising. All the changes to “formal objection” in the Objections section raise questions about the various references to “objections” in both the RVC section and the Application Change Request section. Those sections talk about “objections”. I did not see a prohibition on adopting RVCs in response to private negotiations with a party that is threatening to file an Objection. If we are permitting an RVC to be adopted during a private negotiation process, the RVC should be subject to public comment. If we are prohibiting adoption of an RVC to resolve a dispute before it gets to the formal Objection phase, then I am also fine with that. I am not fine with RVCs being adopted in private negotiations with that potentially not being subject to public comment. This is not at all clear in the document. We make reference to “formal objections” in the Objections section and just use the word “objections” in the RVC and Application Change Request section. We do not make any references to an RVC adopted pursuant to private negotiation before an Objection is filed. If we are going to allow those, it needs to be clear and it also needs to be clear that they are subject to public comment. If we are not going to allow that kind of private resolution, that has to be clear from the document. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 7:16 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne And I don’t disagree with your concerns, however I thought Steve had pointed to where in the language your concern was covered. No? Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 10:04 AM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Jamie, I don’t disagree with any of what you have said below. I am only saying that the document now creates the possibility that someone can argue that an RVC adopted in response to private negotiations (as opposed to the currently listed mechanisms) would not be viewed as an application change request requiring public comment. It is certainly not my purpose to “create” an informal objection. My purpose is to clarify that any RVC adopted to resolve a potential dispute (not just formal objection) should trigger an application change request process that requires public comment. Perhaps I have used the wrong language to try to accomplish that but it seems to me that once we say that Application Change Request with public comment only applies where there is a “formal objection”, then you have created a big loophole to transparency. Not intending to create a new category, just recognizing that private parties may approach each other and negotiate and the outcome could be a “settlement” that results in an RVC and that should always be subject to public comment. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 6:56 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne I think my point may have been missed so I’ll try again. Currently there are public comments and there are objections (formal objections). These are two clearly defined periods for comment and opposition to be expressed by those reviewing applications (minus any GAC processes). Each of these have clearly defined procedures and timelines associated with them as noted in the 2012 AGB, creating transparency and predictability for all. If someone is interested in expressing comment or opposition about an application they are required to do so within those confines (minus GAC). This makes it a fair playing field for all applicants, including community applicants. In the 2012 round, people expressed comment and opposition outside of those confines and ICANN took no steps to enforce the AGB rules or prevent that comment or opposition from impacting the application and evaluation process. This diminished any transparency and predictability that was promised to applicants, and it was in contradiction to what the AGB provided for comment and oppostion. For standard applicants, any comment or opposition expressed after initial evaluation and “formal” objections were completed had no further impact, however for community applicants, ICANN’s miscarriage of the AGB rules had a direct impact on CPE scoring because of gaming. There is no such thing as informal objection in the AGB (as Steve Chan has confirmed), and I do not believe we should be creating such a thing. There are clearly defined times to submit public comment (for free) and there are clearly defined times to challenge applications via the objection process (at a cost). We should not be striping the transparency and predictability out of the process for applicants by allowing an undefined new category of “informal objection” that has no time limit or constraint. As I have pointed out on multiple occasion, all applicants should be treated equally in the process, but community applicants were not in the 2012 round, leaving them subject to an ICANN imposed additional period for people to game them in CPE by going after criteria 4 scoring. Hopefully that clarifies. Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 8:08 PM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Hi Jamie – I think transparency is the issue. If the new language says that RVCs that are adopted in response to a “formal” objection require public comment, then that language, in and of itself, creates a category of objection that is “not formal”. That could easily be a call or a letter from some party that says, “If you don’t adopt the following RVC, we are going to file an objection.” In that case, the RVC that is adopted should also be subject to an Application Change Request and public comment. A private “threat” like that would not be a matter of public comment. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 4:01 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne I would venture to argue that informal objection is technically “public comment.” I do not support creating an undefined category of application input/intervention called “informal objection” that has no specific rules or timeline for submission. This does not add transparency to the process or predictability for applicants. Public comment and formal objections already have clearly defined rules and timelines. I continue to believe it was a miscarriage of the AGB to allow “letters of opposition” (a.k.a informal objection) to be accepted years after the public comment period was closed and the formal objection period was complete. There was certainly no reference in the AGB that this would be allowed or acceptable. It was ultimately a successful gaming tactic used against community applicants. Community applicants deserve the same level of predictability as all other applicants. Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 6:21 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Section 2.3.2 on RVCs and PICs says in Recommendation xx (Rationale 4) that ICANN MUST allow RVCs to be added after the application submission date in order to respond to public comments, objection, GAC Early Warnings, and/or GAC Consensus Advice. So obviously RVCs can be adopted in a context other than “formal objection”. That section then refers us to the Application Change Request section. Thus, in Section 2.4 Application Change Requests, it appears we may have to amend the following language in a. Recommendation xx (rationale 2): ICANN org must document the types of changes which are required to be posted for public comment and which are not required to be posted for public comment. The following is a non-exhaustive list of changes that must require public comment: * The addition of Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections (whether formal or informal), GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings * Changes to Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections, GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings * Changes associated with the formation of joint ventures (see Recommendation xx below) From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:53 PM To: 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Right Rubens – just looking for the language that confirms that because the section on Objections now says in d. that this applies where RVCs are adopted in response to concerns raised in a FORMAL objection. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:49 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 My take is that unless the RVC is already filed in the application, when it will be subject by comments as all applications, will trigger application change request which includes public comments. Why would that not be so ? Rubens On 15 Jul 2020, at 18:38, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Thanks Jamie. I’m looking for the language in the draft Final Report that confirms your understanding. As mentioned below, Subsection d. has some added language stating that RVCs adopted in response to “concerns raised in a formal objection” will be considered application changes. Maybe Jeff or staff can advise where we would find that RVCs adopted in response to concerns expressed by a party that has not yet filed such “formal objection” would also be subject to application change request and public comment. (It may be in the section on Registry Voluntary Commitments”, but I am just looking for confirmation that all RVCs, regardless of the stage in which they are proposed to address concerns, trigger application change request procedures and public comment on the RVCs. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:34 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne I do not believe that all informal objection is weighted equally (or at the level of formal objection) – at least that was our experience in the 2012 round – therefore not all informal objection necessarily invokes an application change request. That said, I do see opportunities where informal objection may invoke an application change request, such as in CPE to address a “letter of objection” targeting points in criteria 4. It has been my understanding that any application change request that extends beyond administrative adjustments to an application goes out for public comment – which I believe is the catch net to address your concerns below. I have never assumed that change requests stemming from informal objection are exempt from public comment. Do I understand that correctly? Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 5:07 PM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Yes – Jamie – that would be my understanding. The question posed relates to the fact that the later paragraph says that RVCs developed in response to a “formal objection” invoke an application change request and require public comment. I hope we have not inadvertently created an exception to this requirement in relation to RVCs adopted in response to an “informal” objection. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:29 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne My interpretation of “formal objection” would be those that are paid for via a dispute resolution provider, not to be confused with any other objection expressed in public comment or other format, including the ICANN correspondence page. Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 4:19 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 On Package 6, please see below: 1. re 2.6.1 re “Application Queuing”, the language shown below should be modified because the previous section is drafted as “more than 125” and the section below is drafted as “less than 125”. Language should be revised does not cover what happens if you get exactly 125 IDN applications: * If there are (delete “less than”) 125 or fewer applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be assigned priority numbersprocessed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application. 2. Section 2.8.1 – Objections I don’t understand why we would remove affirmations of Recommendation 2 and Recommendation 3 from this section. The fact that these Affirmations are affirmed elsewhere in the report does not change their relevance in relation to the subject of Objections. Please clarify whether these Affirmations are “in” or “out.” They don’t appear to be deleted but there are comments on the side saying they should be. Recommendation xx (rationale 3) Throughout this rationale, the word, “formal” has been inserted in front of the word, “objection”. What is the meaning/need for the insertion of “formal” before “objection”? Is there a thought that there are “informal” objection processes? This language also appears in Rationale 6 and there are NUMEROUS insertions of this reference in the Section on Deliberations. Is there some intended effect here with respect to Subsection d. which specifies that a change in Registry Voluntary Commitments that is made in response to a “formal objection” invokes an application change process? Is the idea that if there are RVCs that are agreed OUTSIDE the “formal objection” process (i.e. via an “informal” objection), those RVCs are somehow NOT subject to an application change process and related public comment? I thought we had established that all new RVCs need to be subject to an application change process and public comment. 3. Section 2.9.1 Community Applications – Subsection c. “New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable.” Thanks for deleting the reference to the conclusion that the IRT should be the body that determines any needed changes to the CPE Guidelines. However, what was discussed when the “can’t live with” comments were reviewed is that there is a need to specify that the WG is seeking public comment on the CPE Guidelines. We should be specifying at this point in the text that we are seeking that comment and we should provide the link at this same point in the text so that we call attention to the request for public comment on the CPE Guidelines (but not the scoring.) Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 10:44 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear all, The following are now available for your review in the production document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...>. The deadline for comments is Wednesday 15 July at 23:59 UTC. 1. Package 7 sections of the Report are now ready for “Can’t Live With” review (beginning on page 148<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...>): * Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. * Package 7 includes two report sections: * 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed on 11 June<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...>) - For this section, please limit “Can’t Live With” comments to the new text in the section, which is displayed in black. The text in grey has already gone through “Can’t Live With” review as part of an earlier package. * 2.3.2 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) / Public Interest Commitments (PICs) (last discussed on 18 June<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...>) * Comments will be tracked here<https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw>. 1. Package 6 revisions of the report, now ready for a final check (beginning on page 118<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...>): * Please limit feedback to errors in the edits, for example a revision that you believe does not accurately reflect the outcome of discussions about a “Can’t Live With” item. * Please send this type of feedback to the mailing list. Typo corrections can be sent directly to staff. * For package 6 sections, please do not raise new issues, introduce new “Can’t Live With” items, or re-open deliberations. * A high-level summary of the “Can’t Live With” input received is available here<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report>. And a detailed log with the outcomes from the WG’s consideration of that input is available here<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1blgQjzh_vR7WQ1utsqBnHDb8_b2DD7IDQu-b...>. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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.

Correct – but if you read the Application Change Request section, it does not say all RVCs are subject to public comment. I think that is what we mean and we need to say so in Application Change Requests. It says ICANN must decide and gives examples and those examples don’t include RVCs made for any reason- this is a simple fix to clarify if there was WG agreement on RVCs being made for any reason. (Again, I can remember). From: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 10:42 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Anne, I never said delete the second sentence of that paragraph…so the whole paragraph would state: ICANN must allow applicants to submit Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs)(previously called voluntary PICs) in subsequent rounds in their applications and/or to respond to public comments, objections, GAC Early Warnings, GAC Consensus Advice, or for any other reason the applicant desires to make additional commitments. Applicants must be able to submit RVCs at any time prior to the execution of a Registry Agreement; provided, however, that all RVCs submitted after the application submission date shall be considered Application Changes and be subject to the recommendation set forth in Section xx Application Changes Requests, including, but not limited to, public comment in accordance with ICANN’s standard procedures and timeframes. So how is that not clear…I have bolded it and added emphasis. [cid:image002.png@01D65B5F.3A41F470] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 1:31 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Jeff, The Application Change Request section does NOT say that all RVCs are subject to public comment. You would have to add your language below to that section – but only IF the WG agrees that private negotiation of RVCs is ok. (I can’t remember but Kathy has a different recollection of this.) Anne From: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 9:32 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ I am trying to distill all of these emails from the last 24 hours and here are my thoughts. 1. The text in the existing Applicant Guidebook states: “A formal objection can be filed only on four enumerated grounds, as described in this module. A formal objection initiates a dispute resolution proceeding.” Thus using the term “formal” does make sense in Section 2.3.2 Recommendation XX (Rationale 4). It does not make sense to include the word “informal” there because it creates a category of objections that does not exist. 1. Why don’t we just state something like: “ICANN must allow applicants to submit Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs)(previously called voluntary PICs) in subsequent rounds in their applications and/or to respond to public comments, objections, GAC Early Warnings, GAC Consensus Advice, or for any other reason the applicant desires to make additional commitments. The point of that language was to use as an example, but it was not intended to be a limited list. Plus, when combined with the language Steve quoted, there is no doubt that all RVCs are subject to public comment (whether they are in the initial application) or submitted as an Application Change. [cid:image004.png@01D65B5F.3A41F470] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 10:26 AM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 No – that’s the issue I am raising. All the changes to “formal objection” in the Objections section raise questions about the various references to “objections” in both the RVC section and the Application Change Request section. Those sections talk about “objections”. I did not see a prohibition on adopting RVCs in response to private negotiations with a party that is threatening to file an Objection. If we are permitting an RVC to be adopted during a private negotiation process, the RVC should be subject to public comment. If we are prohibiting adoption of an RVC to resolve a dispute before it gets to the formal Objection phase, then I am also fine with that. I am not fine with RVCs being adopted in private negotiations with that potentially not being subject to public comment. This is not at all clear in the document. We make reference to “formal objections” in the Objections section and just use the word “objections” in the RVC and Application Change Request section. We do not make any references to an RVC adopted pursuant to private negotiation before an Objection is filed. If we are going to allow those, it needs to be clear and it also needs to be clear that they are subject to public comment. If we are not going to allow that kind of private resolution, that has to be clear from the document. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 7:16 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne And I don’t disagree with your concerns, however I thought Steve had pointed to where in the language your concern was covered. No? Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 10:04 AM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Jamie, I don’t disagree with any of what you have said below. I am only saying that the document now creates the possibility that someone can argue that an RVC adopted in response to private negotiations (as opposed to the currently listed mechanisms) would not be viewed as an application change request requiring public comment. It is certainly not my purpose to “create” an informal objection. My purpose is to clarify that any RVC adopted to resolve a potential dispute (not just formal objection) should trigger an application change request process that requires public comment. Perhaps I have used the wrong language to try to accomplish that but it seems to me that once we say that Application Change Request with public comment only applies where there is a “formal objection”, then you have created a big loophole to transparency. Not intending to create a new category, just recognizing that private parties may approach each other and negotiate and the outcome could be a “settlement” that results in an RVC and that should always be subject to public comment. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 6:56 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne I think my point may have been missed so I’ll try again. Currently there are public comments and there are objections (formal objections). These are two clearly defined periods for comment and opposition to be expressed by those reviewing applications (minus any GAC processes). Each of these have clearly defined procedures and timelines associated with them as noted in the 2012 AGB, creating transparency and predictability for all. If someone is interested in expressing comment or opposition about an application they are required to do so within those confines (minus GAC). This makes it a fair playing field for all applicants, including community applicants. In the 2012 round, people expressed comment and opposition outside of those confines and ICANN took no steps to enforce the AGB rules or prevent that comment or opposition from impacting the application and evaluation process. This diminished any transparency and predictability that was promised to applicants, and it was in contradiction to what the AGB provided for comment and oppostion. For standard applicants, any comment or opposition expressed after initial evaluation and “formal” objections were completed had no further impact, however for community applicants, ICANN’s miscarriage of the AGB rules had a direct impact on CPE scoring because of gaming. There is no such thing as informal objection in the AGB (as Steve Chan has confirmed), and I do not believe we should be creating such a thing. There are clearly defined times to submit public comment (for free) and there are clearly defined times to challenge applications via the objection process (at a cost). We should not be striping the transparency and predictability out of the process for applicants by allowing an undefined new category of “informal objection” that has no time limit or constraint. As I have pointed out on multiple occasion, all applicants should be treated equally in the process, but community applicants were not in the 2012 round, leaving them subject to an ICANN imposed additional period for people to game them in CPE by going after criteria 4 scoring. Hopefully that clarifies. Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 8:08 PM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Hi Jamie – I think transparency is the issue. If the new language says that RVCs that are adopted in response to a “formal” objection require public comment, then that language, in and of itself, creates a category of objection that is “not formal”. That could easily be a call or a letter from some party that says, “If you don’t adopt the following RVC, we are going to file an objection.” In that case, the RVC that is adopted should also be subject to an Application Change Request and public comment. A private “threat” like that would not be a matter of public comment. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 4:01 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne I would venture to argue that informal objection is technically “public comment.” I do not support creating an undefined category of application input/intervention called “informal objection” that has no specific rules or timeline for submission. This does not add transparency to the process or predictability for applicants. Public comment and formal objections already have clearly defined rules and timelines. I continue to believe it was a miscarriage of the AGB to allow “letters of opposition” (a.k.a informal objection) to be accepted years after the public comment period was closed and the formal objection period was complete. There was certainly no reference in the AGB that this would be allowed or acceptable. It was ultimately a successful gaming tactic used against community applicants. Community applicants deserve the same level of predictability as all other applicants. Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 6:21 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Section 2.3.2 on RVCs and PICs says in Recommendation xx (Rationale 4) that ICANN MUST allow RVCs to be added after the application submission date in order to respond to public comments, objection, GAC Early Warnings, and/or GAC Consensus Advice. So obviously RVCs can be adopted in a context other than “formal objection”. That section then refers us to the Application Change Request section. Thus, in Section 2.4 Application Change Requests, it appears we may have to amend the following language in a. Recommendation xx (rationale 2): ICANN org must document the types of changes which are required to be posted for public comment and which are not required to be posted for public comment. The following is a non-exhaustive list of changes that must require public comment: * The addition of Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections (whether formal or informal), GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings * Changes to Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections, GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings * Changes associated with the formation of joint ventures (see Recommendation xx below) From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:53 PM To: 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Right Rubens – just looking for the language that confirms that because the section on Objections now says in d. that this applies where RVCs are adopted in response to concerns raised in a FORMAL objection. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:49 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 My take is that unless the RVC is already filed in the application, when it will be subject by comments as all applications, will trigger application change request which includes public comments. Why would that not be so ? Rubens On 15 Jul 2020, at 18:38, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Thanks Jamie. I’m looking for the language in the draft Final Report that confirms your understanding. As mentioned below, Subsection d. has some added language stating that RVCs adopted in response to “concerns raised in a formal objection” will be considered application changes. Maybe Jeff or staff can advise where we would find that RVCs adopted in response to concerns expressed by a party that has not yet filed such “formal objection” would also be subject to application change request and public comment. (It may be in the section on Registry Voluntary Commitments”, but I am just looking for confirmation that all RVCs, regardless of the stage in which they are proposed to address concerns, trigger application change request procedures and public comment on the RVCs. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:34 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne I do not believe that all informal objection is weighted equally (or at the level of formal objection) – at least that was our experience in the 2012 round – therefore not all informal objection necessarily invokes an application change request. That said, I do see opportunities where informal objection may invoke an application change request, such as in CPE to address a “letter of objection” targeting points in criteria 4. It has been my understanding that any application change request that extends beyond administrative adjustments to an application goes out for public comment – which I believe is the catch net to address your concerns below. I have never assumed that change requests stemming from informal objection are exempt from public comment. Do I understand that correctly? Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 5:07 PM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Yes – Jamie – that would be my understanding. The question posed relates to the fact that the later paragraph says that RVCs developed in response to a “formal objection” invoke an application change request and require public comment. I hope we have not inadvertently created an exception to this requirement in relation to RVCs adopted in response to an “informal” objection. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:29 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hey Anne My interpretation of “formal objection” would be those that are paid for via a dispute resolution provider, not to be confused with any other objection expressed in public comment or other format, including the ICANN correspondence page. Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 4:19 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 On Package 6, please see below: 1. re 2.6.1 re “Application Queuing”, the language shown below should be modified because the previous section is drafted as “more than 125” and the section below is drafted as “less than 125”. Language should be revised does not cover what happens if you get exactly 125 IDN applications: * If there are (delete “less than”) 125 or fewer applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be assigned priority numbersprocessed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application. 2. Section 2.8.1 – Objections I don’t understand why we would remove affirmations of Recommendation 2 and Recommendation 3 from this section. The fact that these Affirmations are affirmed elsewhere in the report does not change their relevance in relation to the subject of Objections. Please clarify whether these Affirmations are “in” or “out.” They don’t appear to be deleted but there are comments on the side saying they should be. Recommendation xx (rationale 3) Throughout this rationale, the word, “formal” has been inserted in front of the word, “objection”. What is the meaning/need for the insertion of “formal” before “objection”? Is there a thought that there are “informal” objection processes? This language also appears in Rationale 6 and there are NUMEROUS insertions of this reference in the Section on Deliberations. Is there some intended effect here with respect to Subsection d. which specifies that a change in Registry Voluntary Commitments that is made in response to a “formal objection” invokes an application change process? Is the idea that if there are RVCs that are agreed OUTSIDE the “formal objection” process (i.e. via an “informal” objection), those RVCs are somehow NOT subject to an application change process and related public comment? I thought we had established that all new RVCs need to be subject to an application change process and public comment. 3. Section 2.9.1 Community Applications – Subsection c. “New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable.” Thanks for deleting the reference to the conclusion that the IRT should be the body that determines any needed changes to the CPE Guidelines. However, what was discussed when the “can’t live with” comments were reviewed is that there is a need to specify that the WG is seeking public comment on the CPE Guidelines. We should be specifying at this point in the text that we are seeking that comment and we should provide the link at this same point in the text so that we call attention to the request for public comment on the CPE Guidelines (but not the scoring.) Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 10:44 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear all, The following are now available for your review in the production document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...>. The deadline for comments is Wednesday 15 July at 23:59 UTC. 1. Package 7 sections of the Report are now ready for “Can’t Live With” review (beginning on page 148<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...>): * Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. * Package 7 includes two report sections: * 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed on 11 June<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...>) - For this section, please limit “Can’t Live With” comments to the new text in the section, which is displayed in black. The text in grey has already gone through “Can’t Live With” review as part of an earlier package. * 2.3.2 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) / Public Interest Commitments (PICs) (last discussed on 18 June<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...>) * Comments will be tracked here<https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw>. 1. Package 6 revisions of the report, now ready for a final check (beginning on page 118<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...>): * Please limit feedback to errors in the edits, for example a revision that you believe does not accurately reflect the outcome of discussions about a “Can’t Live With” item. * Please send this type of feedback to the mailing list. Typo corrections can be sent directly to staff. * For package 6 sections, please do not raise new issues, introduce new “Can’t Live With” items, or re-open deliberations. * A high-level summary of the “Can’t Live With” input received is available here<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report>. And a detailed log with the outcomes from the WG’s consideration of that input is available here<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1blgQjzh_vR7WQ1utsqBnHDb8_b2DD7IDQu-b...>. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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.

I agree with Jamie. It can also not be that a community applicant has hundreds of support statements – and just ONE opposition letter from some smaller community stakeholder takes away a point. There must be a balance between size of support and opposition. Example: the opposition has to reach at least 10% of the support to justify not scoring full points in support. If a community applicant has 500 support letters, and 10 opposition letters: Why would that cost them a point? When you try to get support letters you never know whether they will support or later object. In order to have 500 support letters you will have to reach out to at least 700 entities. If only 5 or 7 of those oppose the gTLD – why should that be counted as sizeable opposition? Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jamie Baxter Sent: Donnerstag, 16. Juli 2020 02:01 To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Hey Anne I would venture to argue that informal objection is technically “public comment.” I do not support creating an undefined category of application input/intervention called “informal objection” that has no specific rules or timeline for submission. This does not add transparency to the process or predictability for applicants. Public comment and formal objections already have clearly defined rules and timelines. I continue to believe it was a miscarriage of the AGB to allow “letters of opposition” (a.k.a informal objection) to be accepted years after the public comment period was closed and the formal objection period was complete. There was certainly no reference in the AGB that this would be allowed or acceptable. It was ultimately a successful gaming tactic used against community applicants. Community applicants deserve the same level of predictability as all other applicants. Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 6:21 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Section 2.3.2 on RVCs and PICs says in Recommendation xx (Rationale 4) that ICANN MUST allow RVCs to be added after the application submission date in order to respond to public comments, objection, GAC Early Warnings, and/or GAC Consensus Advice. So obviously RVCs can be adopted in a context other than “formal objection”. That section then refers us to the Application Change Request section. Thus, in Section 2.4 Application Change Requests, it appears we may have to amend the following language in a. Recommendation xx (rationale 2): ICANN org must document the types of changes which are required to be posted for public comment and which are not required to be posted for public comment. The following is a non-exhaustive list of changes that must require public comment: * The addition of Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections (whether formal or informal), GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings * Changes to Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections, GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings * Changes associated with the formation of joint ventures (see Recommendation xx below) From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:53 PM To: 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Right Rubens – just looking for the language that confirms that because the section on Objections now says in d. that this applies where RVCs are adopted in response to concerns raised in a FORMAL objection. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:49 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 My take is that unless the RVC is already filed in the application, when it will be subject by comments as all applications, will trigger application change request which includes public comments. Why would that not be so ? Rubens On 15 Jul 2020, at 18:38, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > wrote: Thanks Jamie. I’m looking for the language in the draft Final Report that confirms your understanding. As mentioned below, Subsection d. has some added language stating that RVCs adopted in response to “concerns raised in a formal objection” will be considered application changes. Maybe Jeff or staff can advise where we would find that RVCs adopted in response to concerns expressed by a party that has not yet filed such “formal objection” would also be subject to application change request and public comment. (It may be in the section on Registry Voluntary Commitments”, but I am just looking for confirmation that all RVCs, regardless of the stage in which they are proposed to address concerns, trigger application change request procedures and public comment on the RVCs. Anne From: Jamie Baxter < <mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com> jbaxter@spimarketing.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:34 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne < <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com>; Emily Barabas < <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> emily.barabas@icann.org>; <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] _____ Hey Anne I do not believe that all informal objection is weighted equally (or at the level of formal objection) – at least that was our experience in the 2012 round – therefore not all informal objection necessarily invokes an application change request. That said, I do see opportunities where informal objection may invoke an application change request, such as in CPE to address a “letter of objection” targeting points in criteria 4. It has been my understanding that any application change request that extends beyond administrative adjustments to an application goes out for public comment – which I believe is the catch net to address your concerns below. I have never assumed that change requests stemming from informal objection are exempt from public comment. Do I understand that correctly? Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" < <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 5:07 PM To: Jamie Baxter < <mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com> jbaxter@spimarketing.com>, Emily Barabas < <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> emily.barabas@icann.org>, " <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Yes – Jamie – that would be my understanding. The question posed relates to the fact that the later paragraph says that RVCs developed in response to a “formal objection” invoke an application change request and require public comment. I hope we have not inadvertently created an exception to this requirement in relation to RVCs adopted in response to an “informal” objection. Anne From: Jamie Baxter < <mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com> jbaxter@spimarketing.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:29 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne < <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com>; Emily Barabas < <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> emily.barabas@icann.org>; <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] _____ Hey Anne My interpretation of “formal objection” would be those that are paid for via a dispute resolution provider, not to be confused with any other objection expressed in public comment or other format, including the ICANN correspondence page. Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg < <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" < <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 4:19 PM To: Emily Barabas < <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> emily.barabas@icann.org>, " <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 On Package 6, please see below: 1. re 2.6.1 re “Application Queuing”, the language shown below should be modified because the previous section is drafted as “more than 125” and the section below is drafted as “less than 125”. Language should be revised does not cover what happens if you get exactly 125 IDN applications: * If there are (delete “less than”) 125 or fewer applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be assigned priority numbersprocessed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application. 2. Section 2.8.1 – Objections I don’t understand why we would remove affirmations of Recommendation 2 and Recommendation 3 from this section. The fact that these Affirmations are affirmed elsewhere in the report does not change their relevance in relation to the subject of Objections. Please clarify whether these Affirmations are “in” or “out.” They don’t appear to be deleted but there are comments on the side saying they should be. Recommendation xx (rationale 3) Throughout this rationale, the word, “formal” has been inserted in front of the word, “objection”. What is the meaning/need for the insertion of “formal” before “objection”? Is there a thought that there are “informal” objection processes? This language also appears in Rationale 6 and there are NUMEROUS insertions of this reference in the Section on Deliberations. Is there some intended effect here with respect to Subsection d. which specifies that a change in Registry Voluntary Commitments that is made in response to a “formal objection” invokes an application change process? Is the idea that if there are RVCs that are agreed OUTSIDE the “formal objection” process (i.e. via an “informal” objection), those RVCs are somehow NOT subject to an application change process and related public comment? I thought we had established that all new RVCs need to be subject to an application change process and public comment. 3. Section 2.9.1 Community Applications – Subsection c. “New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable.” Thanks for deleting the reference to the conclusion that the IRT should be the body that determines any needed changes to the CPE Guidelines. However, what was discussed when the “can’t live with” comments were reviewed is that there is a need to specify that the WG is seeking public comment on the CPE Guidelines. We should be specifying at this point in the text that we are seeking that comment and we should provide the link at this same point in the text so that we call attention to the request for public comment on the CPE Guidelines (but not the scoring.) Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg < <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 10:44 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] _____ Dear all, The following are now available for your review in the <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...> production document. The deadline for comments is Wednesday 15 July at 23:59 UTC. 1. Package 7 sections of the Report are now ready for “Can’t Live With” review (beginning on <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...> page 148): * Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. * Package 7 includes two report sections: * 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed on <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> 11 June) - For this section, please limit “Can’t Live With” comments to the new text in the section, which is displayed in black. The text in grey has already gone through “Can’t Live With” review as part of an earlier package. * 2.3.2 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) / Public Interest Commitments (PICs) (last discussed on <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> 18 June) * Comments will be tracked <https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw> here. 2. Package 6 revisions of the report, now ready for a final check (beginning on <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...> page 118): * Please limit feedback to errors in the edits, for example a revision that you believe does not accurately reflect the outcome of discussions about a “Can’t Live With” item. * Please send this type of feedback to the mailing list. Typo corrections can be sent directly to staff. * For package 6 sections, please do not raise new issues, introduce new “Can’t Live With” items, or re-open deliberations. * A high-level summary of the “Can’t Live With” input received is available <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report> here. And a detailed log with the outcomes from the WG’s consideration of that input is available <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1blgQjzh_vR7WQ1utsqBnHDb8_b2DD7IDQu-b...> here. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 <http://www.icann.org/> www.icann.org _____ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _____ 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. _____ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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. _____ 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.