Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Dear Anne, apologies, the email below was sitting unsent. Below is confirmation that your suggestion was integrated, but also a questions/suggestion for your and the WG’s consideration. Your suggestion has been added to the working draft, although I wonder if this is more applicable to the section on change requests, where the topic of string changes is talked about more fully? Specifically, it might make sense to add to this block of text in section 1.4.d instead (or in addition?): Implementation Guidance: Some examples to consider in allowing for a new string to be selected include prepending/appending a new element to the original string or selecting a string that is closely related to the class/sector of the original string. ICANN org must perform a re-evaluation of the new applied-for string in all string related evaluation elements (e.g., DNS Stability, String Contention, etc.) and the application for the new string would be subject to string related objections (e.g., String Confusion Objections, Legal Rights Objections, etc.). The applicant may be responsible for additional, material costs incurred by ICANN due to re-evaluation and the application could be subject to delay. Best, Steve From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Steve. As mentioned on yesterday’s call, I have comments and language for the last bullet point under 1.2 (d). After considering this language more carefully, please see the following change in red: A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [lrrc.com] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 2:42 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda review/SOIs Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued Planning for ICANN63 AOB For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft. For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings [63.schedule.icann.org]). Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org). Best, Steve 2 Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com] Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com] http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.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.
Probably “in addition”. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D460BA.698192F0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 9:22 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear Anne, apologies, the email below was sitting unsent. Below is confirmation that your suggestion was integrated, but also a questions/suggestion for your and the WG’s consideration. Your suggestion has been added to the working draft, although I wonder if this is more applicable to the section on change requests, where the topic of string changes is talked about more fully? Specifically, it might make sense to add to this block of text in section 1.4.d instead (or in addition?): Implementation Guidance: Some examples to consider in allowing for a new string to be selected include prepending/appending a new element to the original string or selecting a string that is closely related to the class/sector of the original string. ICANN org must perform a re-evaluation of the new applied-for string in all string related evaluation elements (e.g., DNS Stability, String Contention, etc.) and the application for the new string would be subject to string related objections (e.g., String Confusion Objections, Legal Rights Objections, etc.). The applicant may be responsible for additional, material costs incurred by ICANN due to re-evaluation and the application could be subject to delay. Best, Steve From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@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: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Steve. As mentioned on yesterday’s call, I have comments and language for the last bullet point under 1.2 (d). After considering this language more carefully, please see the following change in red: * A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D45FAA.F2083450] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [lrrc.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY...> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 2:42 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda review/SOIs 2. Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued 3. Planning for ICANN63 4. AOB For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft. For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings [63.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__63.schedule.icann.org_m...>). Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>). Best, Steve 2 Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icanng...> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_&d=DwM...> ________________________________ 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.
Could I get some clarity on the proposed text/language regarding the third option as highlighted in yellow below please. - A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution. 1) If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in withdrawing of an application. Should it not result in a termination or dismissal of an application? "Withdrawing" implies that the applicant has a choice, or is that what was intended by author of this text and/or WG? 2) Is the term "agreement" in part (a) meant to be the same thing as the term "contract" in part (b)? Can we be specific about what agreement or contract these are meant to be? Thanks, Justine Chew ----- On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 07:58, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Probably “in addition”.
Thank you,
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 09, 2018 9:22 PM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Dear Anne, apologies, the email below was sitting unsent. Below is confirmation that your suggestion was integrated, but also a questions/suggestion for your and the WG’s consideration.
Your suggestion has been added to the working draft, although I wonder if this is more applicable to the section on change requests, where the topic of string changes is talked about more fully? Specifically, it might make sense to add to this block of text in section 1.4.d instead (or in addition?):
Implementation Guidance: Some examples to consider in allowing for a new string to be selected include prepending/appending a new element to the original string or selecting a string that is closely related to the class/sector of the original string. ICANN org must perform a re-evaluation of the new applied-for string in all string related evaluation elements (e.g., DNS Stability, String Contention, etc.) and the application for the new string would be subject to string related objections (e.g., String Confusion Objections, Legal Rights Objections, etc.). The applicant may be responsible for additional, material costs incurred by ICANN due to re-evaluation and the application could be subject to delay.
Best,
Steve
*From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Date: *Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:35 AM *To: *Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Thanks Steve. As mentioned on yesterday’s call, I have comments and language for the last bullet point under 1.2 (d). After considering this language more carefully, please see the following change in red:
- A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution.
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
[image: cid:image003.png@01D45FAA.F2083450]
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com [lrrc.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY...>
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Steve Chan *Sent:* Friday, October 05, 2018 2:42 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Dear WG Members,
Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes.
1. Agenda review/SOIs 2. Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued 3. Planning for ICANN63 4. AOB
For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft.
For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings [63.schedule.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__63.schedule.icann.org_m...> ).
Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org).
Best,
Steve 2
*Steven Chan*
Policy Director, GNSO Support
*ICANN*
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
Offic
e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800
Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...> .
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...>
Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icanng...>
http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_&d=DwM...>
------------------------------
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
Thanks Justine. Your questions are good ones. On the first one, I believe ICANN only uses the terms “withdrawn” or “shall not proceed” in the Guidebook. I don’t believe the word termination is used in connection with an application. So, that is why that term was selected. On the second question the agreement/contract is the ICANN Registry Agreement and I agree with you that we should make it more clear in both parts of that sentence. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 8:45 AM To: steve.chan@icann.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Could I get some clarity on the proposed text/language regarding the third option as highlighted in yellow below please. * A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution. 1) If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in withdrawing of an application. Should it not result in a termination or dismissal of an application? "Withdrawing" implies that the applicant has a choice, or is that what was intended by author of this text and/or WG? 2) Is the term "agreement" in part (a) meant to be the same thing as the term "contract" in part (b)? Can we be specific about what agreement or contract these are meant to be? Thanks, Justine Chew ----- On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 07:58, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Probably “in addition”. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 9:22 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear Anne, apologies, the email below was sitting unsent. Below is confirmation that your suggestion was integrated, but also a questions/suggestion for your and the WG’s consideration. Your suggestion has been added to the working draft, although I wonder if this is more applicable to the section on change requests, where the topic of string changes is talked about more fully? Specifically, it might make sense to add to this block of text in section 1.4.d instead (or in addition?): Implementation Guidance: Some examples to consider in allowing for a new string to be selected include prepending/appending a new element to the original string or selecting a string that is closely related to the class/sector of the original string. ICANN org must perform a re-evaluation of the new applied-for string in all string related evaluation elements (e.g., DNS Stability, String Contention, etc.) and the application for the new string would be subject to string related objections (e.g., String Confusion Objections, Legal Rights Objections, etc.). The applicant may be responsible for additional, material costs incurred by ICANN due to re-evaluation and the application could be subject to delay. Best, Steve From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@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: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Steve. As mentioned on yesterday’s call, I have comments and language for the last bullet point under 1.2 (d). After considering this language more carefully, please see the following change in red: * A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [lrrc.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY...> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 2:42 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda review/SOIs 2. Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued 3. Planning for ICANN63 4. AOB For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft. For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings [63.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__63.schedule.icann.org_m...>). Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>). Best, Steve 2 Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icanng...> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_&d=DwM...> ________________________________ 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
Thanks for your reply, Jeff. Just on my first question, yes, I don't disagree with your explanation, but I did want to, if possible, establish the intent to the consequence of being found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution. Post AGB, additional statuses for applications were introduced during implementation phase, for eg. "Not Approved". As mentioned before, "withdrawing" implies to me a choice by the applicant, and in fact the "withdrawn" status explicitly states so at https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/advisories/application-contention-s.... Hence I was concerned about the ramification around choice by the applicant, not to mention any 'rights' as to refunds. I wonder if the term "non-approval" might be an appropriate alternative to "withdrawing", although I'm not sure if "non-approval" will then raise further complications to the AGB as drafted. Justine Chew ----- On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 02:34, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
Thanks Justine.
Your questions are good ones. On the first one, I believe ICANN only uses the terms “withdrawn” or “shall not proceed” in the Guidebook. I don’t believe the word termination is used in connection with an application. So, that is why that term was selected.
On the second question the agreement/contract is the ICANN Registry Agreement and I agree with you that we should make it more clear in both parts of that sentence.
*Jeff Neuman*
Senior Vice President
*Com Laude | Valideus *1751 Pinnacle Drive
Suite 600, McLean
VA 22102, USA
D: +1.703.635.7514
T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250
E: *jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>* www.comlaude.com
Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc.
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Justine Chew *Sent:* Thursday, October 11, 2018 8:45 AM *To:* steve.chan@icann.org *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Could I get some clarity on the proposed text/language regarding the third option as highlighted in yellow below please.
- A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution.
1) If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in withdrawing of an application. Should it not result in a termination or dismissal of an application? "Withdrawing" implies that the applicant has a choice, or is that what was intended by author of this text and/or WG?
2) Is the term "agreement" in part (a) meant to be the same thing as the term "contract" in part (b)? Can we be specific about what agreement or contract these are meant to be?
Thanks,
Justine Chew -----
On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 07:58, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Probably “in addition”.
Thank you,
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 09, 2018 9:22 PM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Dear Anne, apologies, the email below was sitting unsent. Below is confirmation that your suggestion was integrated, but also a questions/suggestion for your and the WG’s consideration.
Your suggestion has been added to the working draft, although I wonder if this is more applicable to the section on change requests, where the topic of string changes is talked about more fully? Specifically, it might make sense to add to this block of text in section 1.4.d instead (or in addition?):
Implementation Guidance: Some examples to consider in allowing for a new string to be selected include prepending/appending a new element to the original string or selecting a string that is closely related to the class/sector of the original string. ICANN org must perform a re-evaluation of the new applied-for string in all string related evaluation elements (e.g., DNS Stability, String Contention, etc.) and the application for the new string would be subject to string related objections (e.g., String Confusion Objections, Legal Rights Objections, etc.). The applicant may be responsible for additional, material costs incurred by ICANN due to re-evaluation and the application could be subject to delay.
Best,
Steve
*From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Date: *Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:35 AM *To: *Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Thanks Steve. As mentioned on yesterday’s call, I have comments and language for the last bullet point under 1.2 (d). After considering this language more carefully, please see the following change in red:
- A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution.
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com [lrrc.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY...>
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Steve Chan *Sent:* Friday, October 05, 2018 2:42 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Dear WG Members,
Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes.
1. Agenda review/SOIs 2. Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued 3. Planning for ICANN63 4. AOB
For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft.
For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings [63.schedule.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__63.schedule.icann.org_m...> ).
Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org).
Best,
Steve 2
*Steven Chan*
Policy Director, GNSO Support
*ICANN*
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
Offic
e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800
Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...> .
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...>
Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icanng...>
http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_&d=DwM...>
------------------------------
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
We may want to check the terms used in the new gTLD “status” pages for strings in contention. Language should likely be consistent with what is posted there by icann.org if possible. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D4623D.7CF22C80] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:21 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks for your reply, Jeff. Just on my first question, yes, I don't disagree with your explanation, but I did want to, if possible, establish the intent to the consequence of being found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution. Post AGB, additional statuses for applications were introduced during implementation phase, for eg. "Not Approved". As mentioned before, "withdrawing" implies to me a choice by the applicant, and in fact the "withdrawn" status explicitly states so at https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/advisories/application-contention-s.... Hence I was concerned about the ramification around choice by the applicant, not to mention any 'rights' as to refunds. I wonder if the term "non-approval" might be an appropriate alternative to "withdrawing", although I'm not sure if "non-approval" will then raise further complications to the AGB as drafted. Justine Chew ----- On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 02:34, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Thanks Justine. Your questions are good ones. On the first one, I believe ICANN only uses the terms “withdrawn” or “shall not proceed” in the Guidebook. I don’t believe the word termination is used in connection with an application. So, that is why that term was selected. On the second question the agreement/contract is the ICANN Registry Agreement and I agree with you that we should make it more clear in both parts of that sentence. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 8:45 AM To: steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Could I get some clarity on the proposed text/language regarding the third option as highlighted in yellow below please. * A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution. 1) If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in withdrawing of an application. Should it not result in a termination or dismissal of an application? "Withdrawing" implies that the applicant has a choice, or is that what was intended by author of this text and/or WG? 2) Is the term "agreement" in part (a) meant to be the same thing as the term "contract" in part (b)? Can we be specific about what agreement or contract these are meant to be? Thanks, Justine Chew ----- On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 07:58, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Probably “in addition”. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 9:22 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear Anne, apologies, the email below was sitting unsent. Below is confirmation that your suggestion was integrated, but also a questions/suggestion for your and the WG’s consideration. Your suggestion has been added to the working draft, although I wonder if this is more applicable to the section on change requests, where the topic of string changes is talked about more fully? Specifically, it might make sense to add to this block of text in section 1.4.d instead (or in addition?): Implementation Guidance: Some examples to consider in allowing for a new string to be selected include prepending/appending a new element to the original string or selecting a string that is closely related to the class/sector of the original string. ICANN org must perform a re-evaluation of the new applied-for string in all string related evaluation elements (e.g., DNS Stability, String Contention, etc.) and the application for the new string would be subject to string related objections (e.g., String Confusion Objections, Legal Rights Objections, etc.). The applicant may be responsible for additional, material costs incurred by ICANN due to re-evaluation and the application could be subject to delay. Best, Steve From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@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: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Steve. As mentioned on yesterday’s call, I have comments and language for the last bullet point under 1.2 (d). After considering this language more carefully, please see the following change in red: * A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [lrrc.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY...> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 2:42 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda review/SOIs 2. Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued 3. Planning for ICANN63 4. AOB For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft. For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings [63.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__63.schedule.icann.org_m...>). Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>). Best, Steve 2 Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icanng...> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_&d=DwM...> ________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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, Justine, Jeff, all, Based on your suggestions, the sentence has been amended as such: From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Friday, October 12, 2018 at 3:09 PM To: 'Justine Chew' <justine.chew@gmail.com>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC We may want to check the terms used in the new gTLD “status” pages for strings in contention. Language should likely be consistent with what is posted there by icann.org if possible. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:21 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks for your reply, Jeff. Just on my first question, yes, I don't disagree with your explanation, but I did want to, if possible, establish the intent to the consequence of being found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution. Post AGB, additional statuses for applications were introduced during implementation phase, for eg. "Not Approved". As mentioned before, "withdrawing" implies to me a choice by the applicant, and in fact the "withdrawn" status explicitly states so at https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/advisories/application-contention-s.... Hence I was concerned about the ramification around choice by the applicant, not to mention any 'rights' as to refunds. I wonder if the term "non-approval" might be an appropriate alternative to "withdrawing", although I'm not sure if "non-approval" will then raise further complications to the AGB as drafted. Justine Chew ----- On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 02:34, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote: Thanks Justine. Your questions are good ones. On the first one, I believe ICANN only uses the terms “withdrawn” or “shall not proceed” in the Guidebook. I don’t believe the word termination is used in connection with an application. So, that is why that term was selected. On the second question the agreement/contract is the ICANN Registry Agreement and I agree with you that we should make it more clear in both parts of that sentence. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com www.comlaude.com Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 8:45 AM To: steve.chan@icann.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Could I get some clarity on the proposed text/language regarding the third option as highlighted in yellow below please. A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution. 1) If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in withdrawing of an application. Should it not result in a termination or dismissal of an application? "Withdrawing" implies that the applicant has a choice, or is that what was intended by author of this text and/or WG? 2) Is the term "agreement" in part (a) meant to be the same thing as the term "contract" in part (b)? Can we be specific about what agreement or contract these are meant to be? Thanks, Justine Chew ----- On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 07:58, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote: Probably “in addition”. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com From: Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 9:22 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear Anne, apologies, the email below was sitting unsent. Below is confirmation that your suggestion was integrated, but also a questions/suggestion for your and the WG’s consideration. Your suggestion has been added to the working draft, although I wonder if this is more applicable to the section on change requests, where the topic of string changes is talked about more fully? Specifically, it might make sense to add to this block of text in section 1.4.d instead (or in addition?): Implementation Guidance: Some examples to consider in allowing for a new string to be selected include prepending/appending a new element to the original string or selecting a string that is closely related to the class/sector of the original string. ICANN org must perform a re-evaluation of the new applied-for string in all string related evaluation elements (e.g., DNS Stability, String Contention, etc.) and the application for the new string would be subject to string related objections (e.g., String Confusion Objections, Legal Rights Objections, etc.). The applicant may be responsible for additional, material costs incurred by ICANN due to re-evaluation and the application could be subject to delay. Best, Steve From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Steve. As mentioned on yesterday’s call, I have comments and language for the last bullet point under 1.2 (d). After considering this language more carefully, please see the following change in red: A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [lrrc.com] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 2:42 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda review/SOIs Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued Planning for ICANN63 AOB For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft. For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings [63.schedule.icann.org]). Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org). Best, Steve 2 Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com] Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com] http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg 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.
Apologies, I hit a shortcut on my keyboard to send the email below prematurely! Here is the sentence: If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) the application not being allowed to proceed – if a Registry Agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a Registry Agreement is signed). The use of “not being allowed to proceed” should be consistent with both of the Applicant Guidebook and the Current Application Status page. Also, “agreement” and “contract” have both been replaced with Registry Agreement. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Date: Monday, October 15, 2018 at 4:39 PM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Justine Chew' <justine.chew@gmail.com>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear Anne, Justine, Jeff, all, Based on your suggestions, the sentence has been amended as such: From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Friday, October 12, 2018 at 3:09 PM To: 'Justine Chew' <justine.chew@gmail.com>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC We may want to check the terms used in the new gTLD “status” pages for strings in contention. Language should likely be consistent with what is posted there by icann.org if possible. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:21 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks for your reply, Jeff. Just on my first question, yes, I don't disagree with your explanation, but I did want to, if possible, establish the intent to the consequence of being found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution. Post AGB, additional statuses for applications were introduced during implementation phase, for eg. "Not Approved". As mentioned before, "withdrawing" implies to me a choice by the applicant, and in fact the "withdrawn" status explicitly states so at https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/advisories/application-contention-s.... Hence I was concerned about the ramification around choice by the applicant, not to mention any 'rights' as to refunds. I wonder if the term "non-approval" might be an appropriate alternative to "withdrawing", although I'm not sure if "non-approval" will then raise further complications to the AGB as drafted. Justine Chew ----- On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 02:34, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote: Thanks Justine. Your questions are good ones. On the first one, I believe ICANN only uses the terms “withdrawn” or “shall not proceed” in the Guidebook. I don’t believe the word termination is used in connection with an application. So, that is why that term was selected. On the second question the agreement/contract is the ICANN Registry Agreement and I agree with you that we should make it more clear in both parts of that sentence. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com www.comlaude.com Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 8:45 AM To: steve.chan@icann.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Could I get some clarity on the proposed text/language regarding the third option as highlighted in yellow below please. A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution. 1) If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in withdrawing of an application. Should it not result in a termination or dismissal of an application? "Withdrawing" implies that the applicant has a choice, or is that what was intended by author of this text and/or WG? 2) Is the term "agreement" in part (a) meant to be the same thing as the term "contract" in part (b)? Can we be specific about what agreement or contract these are meant to be? Thanks, Justine Chew ----- On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 07:58, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote: Probably “in addition”. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com From: Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 9:22 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear Anne, apologies, the email below was sitting unsent. Below is confirmation that your suggestion was integrated, but also a questions/suggestion for your and the WG’s consideration. Your suggestion has been added to the working draft, although I wonder if this is more applicable to the section on change requests, where the topic of string changes is talked about more fully? Specifically, it might make sense to add to this block of text in section 1.4.d instead (or in addition?): Implementation Guidance: Some examples to consider in allowing for a new string to be selected include prepending/appending a new element to the original string or selecting a string that is closely related to the class/sector of the original string. ICANN org must perform a re-evaluation of the new applied-for string in all string related evaluation elements (e.g., DNS Stability, String Contention, etc.) and the application for the new string would be subject to string related objections (e.g., String Confusion Objections, Legal Rights Objections, etc.). The applicant may be responsible for additional, material costs incurred by ICANN due to re-evaluation and the application could be subject to delay. Best, Steve From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Steve. As mentioned on yesterday’s call, I have comments and language for the last bullet point under 1.2 (d). After considering this language more carefully, please see the following change in red: A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [lrrc.com] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 2:42 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda review/SOIs Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued Planning for ICANN63 AOB For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft. For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings [63.schedule.icann.org]). Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org). Best, Steve 2 Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com] Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com] http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg 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 looks good Steve – just a question – does our draft say in what manner would parties be “found” to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution? Is it an Objection process or a Complaint process. Who makes the “finding”? Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D46522.30993F30] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 4:44 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Justine Chew'; Jeff Neuman Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Apologies, I hit a shortcut on my keyboard to send the email below prematurely! Here is the sentence: If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) the application not being allowed to proceed – if a Registry Agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a Registry Agreement is signed). The use of “not being allowed to proceed” should be consistent with both of the Applicant Guidebook and the Current Application Status page. Also, “agreement” and “contract” have both been replaced with Registry Agreement. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Date: Monday, October 15, 2018 at 4:39 PM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Justine Chew' <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: "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] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear Anne, Justine, Jeff, all, Based on your suggestions, the sentence has been amended as such: 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: Friday, October 12, 2018 at 3:09 PM To: 'Justine Chew' <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: "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] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC We may want to check the terms used in the new gTLD “status” pages for strings in contention. Language should likely be consistent with what is posted there by icann.org if possible. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D4623D.7CF22C80] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:21 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks for your reply, Jeff. Just on my first question, yes, I don't disagree with your explanation, but I did want to, if possible, establish the intent to the consequence of being found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution. Post AGB, additional statuses for applications were introduced during implementation phase, for eg. "Not Approved". As mentioned before, "withdrawing" implies to me a choice by the applicant, and in fact the "withdrawn" status explicitly states so at https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/advisories/application-contention-s.... Hence I was concerned about the ramification around choice by the applicant, not to mention any 'rights' as to refunds. I wonder if the term "non-approval" might be an appropriate alternative to "withdrawing", although I'm not sure if "non-approval" will then raise further complications to the AGB as drafted. Justine Chew ----- On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 02:34, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Thanks Justine. Your questions are good ones. On the first one, I believe ICANN only uses the terms “withdrawn” or “shall not proceed” in the Guidebook. I don’t believe the word termination is used in connection with an application. So, that is why that term was selected. On the second question the agreement/contract is the ICANN Registry Agreement and I agree with you that we should make it more clear in both parts of that sentence. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 8:45 AM To: steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Could I get some clarity on the proposed text/language regarding the third option as highlighted in yellow below please. * A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution. 1) If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in withdrawing of an application. Should it not result in a termination or dismissal of an application? "Withdrawing" implies that the applicant has a choice, or is that what was intended by author of this text and/or WG? 2) Is the term "agreement" in part (a) meant to be the same thing as the term "contract" in part (b)? Can we be specific about what agreement or contract these are meant to be? Thanks, Justine Chew ----- On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 07:58, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Probably “in addition”. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 9:22 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear Anne, apologies, the email below was sitting unsent. Below is confirmation that your suggestion was integrated, but also a questions/suggestion for your and the WG’s consideration. Your suggestion has been added to the working draft, although I wonder if this is more applicable to the section on change requests, where the topic of string changes is talked about more fully? Specifically, it might make sense to add to this block of text in section 1.4.d instead (or in addition?): Implementation Guidance: Some examples to consider in allowing for a new string to be selected include prepending/appending a new element to the original string or selecting a string that is closely related to the class/sector of the original string. ICANN org must perform a re-evaluation of the new applied-for string in all string related evaluation elements (e.g., DNS Stability, String Contention, etc.) and the application for the new string would be subject to string related objections (e.g., String Confusion Objections, Legal Rights Objections, etc.). The applicant may be responsible for additional, material costs incurred by ICANN due to re-evaluation and the application could be subject to delay. Best, Steve From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@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: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Steve. As mentioned on yesterday’s call, I have comments and language for the last bullet point under 1.2 (d). After considering this language more carefully, please see the following change in red: * A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [lrrc.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY...> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 2:42 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda review/SOIs 2. Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued 3. Planning for ICANN63 4. AOB For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft. For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings [63.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__63.schedule.icann.org_m...>). Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>). Best, Steve 2 Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icanng...> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_&d=DwM...> ________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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.
Thanks Steve and good question Anne. In response, I propose we consider extending the relevant question in the ensuing part e as follows (in blue): - Do you believe instead that there are practical ways to allow some forms of private resolution but disallow others, as indicated in option 3 above? What would be the acceptable or non-acceptable forms of private resolution and why? Who should determine whether parties in a contention set have or have not engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution and how would such a determination be established? Or something along these lines. Justine Chew ----- On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 22:31, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
This looks good Steve – just a question – does our draft say in what manner would parties be “found” to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution? Is it an Objection process or a Complaint process. Who makes the “finding”?
Thank you,
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org] *Sent:* Monday, October 15, 2018 4:44 PM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Justine Chew'; Jeff Neuman *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Apologies, I hit a shortcut on my keyboard to send the email below prematurely!
Here is the sentence:
*If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) the application not being allowed to proceed – if a Registry Agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a Registry Agreement is signed).*
The use of “not being allowed to proceed” should be consistent with both of the Applicant Guidebook and the Current Application Status page. Also, “agreement” and “contract” have both been replaced with Registry Agreement.
Best,
Steve
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, October 15, 2018 at 4:39 PM *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Justine Chew' < justine.chew@gmail.com>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Dear Anne, Justine, Jeff, all,
Based on your suggestions, the sentence has been amended as such:
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Date: *Friday, October 12, 2018 at 3:09 PM *To: *'Justine Chew' <justine.chew@gmail.com>, Jeff Neuman < jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
We may want to check the terms used in the new gTLD “status” pages for strings in contention. Language should likely be consistent with what is posted there by icann.org if possible.
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
[image: cid:image003.png@01D4623D.7CF22C80]
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Justine Chew *Sent:* Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:21 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Thanks for your reply, Jeff.
Just on my first question, yes, I don't disagree with your explanation, but I did want to, if possible, establish the intent to the consequence of being found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution. Post AGB, additional statuses for applications were introduced during implementation phase, for eg. "Not Approved".
As mentioned before, "withdrawing" implies to me a choice by the applicant, and in fact the "withdrawn" status explicitly states so at
https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/advisories/application-contention-s.... Hence I was concerned about the ramification around choice by the applicant, not to mention any 'rights' as to refunds.
I wonder if the term "non-approval" might be an appropriate alternative to "withdrawing", although I'm not sure if "non-approval" will then raise further complications to the AGB as drafted.
Justine Chew -----
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 02:34, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
Thanks Justine.
Your questions are good ones. On the first one, I believe ICANN only uses the terms “withdrawn” or “shall not proceed” in the Guidebook. I don’t believe the word termination is used in connection with an application. So, that is why that term was selected.
On the second question the agreement/contract is the ICANN Registry Agreement and I agree with you that we should make it more clear in both parts of that sentence.
*Jeff Neuman*
Senior Vice President
*Com Laude | Valideus *1751 Pinnacle Drive
Suite 600, McLean
VA 22102, USA
D: +1.703.635.7514
T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250
E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com www.comlaude.com
Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc.
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Justine Chew *Sent:* Thursday, October 11, 2018 8:45 AM *To:* steve.chan@icann.org *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Could I get some clarity on the proposed text/language regarding the third option as highlighted in yellow below please.
- A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution.
1) If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in withdrawing of an application. Should it not result in a termination or dismissal of an application? "Withdrawing" implies that the applicant has a choice, or is that what was intended by author of this text and/or WG?
2) Is the term "agreement" in part (a) meant to be the same thing as the term "contract" in part (b)? Can we be specific about what agreement or contract these are meant to be?
Thanks,
Justine Chew -----
On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 07:58, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Probably “in addition”.
Thank you,
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 09, 2018 9:22 PM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Dear Anne, apologies, the email below was sitting unsent. Below is confirmation that your suggestion was integrated, but also a questions/suggestion for your and the WG’s consideration.
Your suggestion has been added to the working draft, although I wonder if this is more applicable to the section on change requests, where the topic of string changes is talked about more fully? Specifically, it might make sense to add to this block of text in section 1.4.d instead (or in addition?):
Implementation Guidance: Some examples to consider in allowing for a new string to be selected include prepending/appending a new element to the original string or selecting a string that is closely related to the class/sector of the original string. ICANN org must perform a re-evaluation of the new applied-for string in all string related evaluation elements (e.g., DNS Stability, String Contention, etc.) and the application for the new string would be subject to string related objections (e.g., String Confusion Objections, Legal Rights Objections, etc.). The applicant may be responsible for additional, material costs incurred by ICANN due to re-evaluation and the application could be subject to delay.
Best,
Steve
*From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Date: *Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:35 AM *To: *Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Thanks Steve. As mentioned on yesterday’s call, I have comments and language for the last bullet point under 1.2 (d). After considering this language more carefully, please see the following change in red:
- A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution.
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com [lrrc.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY...>
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Steve Chan *Sent:* Friday, October 05, 2018 2:42 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Dear WG Members,
Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes.
1. Agenda review/SOIs 2. Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued 3. Planning for ICANN63 4. AOB
For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft.
For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings [63.schedule.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__63.schedule.icann.org_m...> ).
Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org).
Best,
Steve 2
*Steven Chan*
Policy Director, GNSO Support
*ICANN*
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
Offic
e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800
Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...> .
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...>
Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icanng...>
http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_&d=DwM...>
------------------------------
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
------------------------------
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.
Thanks Justine and Anne. I don’t mind asking a question on who people believe should be responsible for making the determination, but the assumption in the drafting of that option was that it would be ICANN that would make the determination. I was a little hesitant to write this e-mail because I can already hear the next question: “What criteria would ICANN use to make that determination….” That takes us down a rabbit hole which we may not need to go down at this point since we are just seeking input on the principle now. If the principle has traction, then we can work more on the details. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 11:13 AM To: AAikman@lrrc.com; steve.chan@icann.org Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Steve and good question Anne. In response, I propose we consider extending the relevant question in the ensuing part e as follows (in blue): * Do you believe instead that there are practical ways to allow some forms of private resolution but disallow others, as indicated in option 3 above? What would be the acceptable or non-acceptable forms of private resolution and why? Who should determine whether parties in a contention set have or have not engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution and how would such a determination be established? Or something along these lines. Justine Chew ----- On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 22:31, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: This looks good Steve – just a question – does our draft say in what manner would parties be “found” to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution? Is it an Objection process or a Complaint process. Who makes the “finding”? Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D46522.30993F30] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 4:44 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Justine Chew'; Jeff Neuman Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Apologies, I hit a shortcut on my keyboard to send the email below prematurely! Here is the sentence: If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) the application not being allowed to proceed – if a Registry Agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a Registry Agreement is signed). The use of “not being allowed to proceed” should be consistent with both of the Applicant Guidebook and the Current Application Status page. Also, “agreement” and “contract” have both been replaced with Registry Agreement. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Date: Monday, October 15, 2018 at 4:39 PM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Justine Chew' <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: "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] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear Anne, Justine, Jeff, all, Based on your suggestions, the sentence has been amended as such: 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: Friday, October 12, 2018 at 3:09 PM To: 'Justine Chew' <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: "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] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC We may want to check the terms used in the new gTLD “status” pages for strings in contention. Language should likely be consistent with what is posted there by icann.org if possible. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D4623D.7CF22C80] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:21 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks for your reply, Jeff. Just on my first question, yes, I don't disagree with your explanation, but I did want to, if possible, establish the intent to the consequence of being found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution. Post AGB, additional statuses for applications were introduced during implementation phase, for eg. "Not Approved". As mentioned before, "withdrawing" implies to me a choice by the applicant, and in fact the "withdrawn" status explicitly states so at https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/advisories/application-contention-s.... Hence I was concerned about the ramification around choice by the applicant, not to mention any 'rights' as to refunds. I wonder if the term "non-approval" might be an appropriate alternative to "withdrawing", although I'm not sure if "non-approval" will then raise further complications to the AGB as drafted. Justine Chew ----- On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 02:34, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Thanks Justine. Your questions are good ones. On the first one, I believe ICANN only uses the terms “withdrawn” or “shall not proceed” in the Guidebook. I don’t believe the word termination is used in connection with an application. So, that is why that term was selected. On the second question the agreement/contract is the ICANN Registry Agreement and I agree with you that we should make it more clear in both parts of that sentence. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 8:45 AM To: steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Could I get some clarity on the proposed text/language regarding the third option as highlighted in yellow below please. * A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution. 1) If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in withdrawing of an application. Should it not result in a termination or dismissal of an application? "Withdrawing" implies that the applicant has a choice, or is that what was intended by author of this text and/or WG? 2) Is the term "agreement" in part (a) meant to be the same thing as the term "contract" in part (b)? Can we be specific about what agreement or contract these are meant to be? Thanks, Justine Chew ----- On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 07:58, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Probably “in addition”. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 9:22 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear Anne, apologies, the email below was sitting unsent. Below is confirmation that your suggestion was integrated, but also a questions/suggestion for your and the WG’s consideration. Your suggestion has been added to the working draft, although I wonder if this is more applicable to the section on change requests, where the topic of string changes is talked about more fully? Specifically, it might make sense to add to this block of text in section 1.4.d instead (or in addition?): Implementation Guidance: Some examples to consider in allowing for a new string to be selected include prepending/appending a new element to the original string or selecting a string that is closely related to the class/sector of the original string. ICANN org must perform a re-evaluation of the new applied-for string in all string related evaluation elements (e.g., DNS Stability, String Contention, etc.) and the application for the new string would be subject to string related objections (e.g., String Confusion Objections, Legal Rights Objections, etc.). The applicant may be responsible for additional, material costs incurred by ICANN due to re-evaluation and the application could be subject to delay. Best, Steve From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@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: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Steve. As mentioned on yesterday’s call, I have comments and language for the last bullet point under 1.2 (d). After considering this language more carefully, please see the following change in red: * A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [lrrc.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY...> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 2:42 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda review/SOIs 2. Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued 3. Planning for ICANN63 4. AOB For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft. For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings [63.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__63.schedule.icann.org_m...>). Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>). Best, Steve 2 Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icanng...> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_&d=DwM...> ________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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.
Jeff – I am personally not too concerned but we do need to understand that when ICANN makes a determination, it can result in years of administrative processes such as Request for Reconsideration and Independent Review Panel. I’m not sure that Contracted Parties really want that determination to be “up in the air” for extended periods of time. It appears that delay is considered deathly in the gTLD launch process – application fees are on file etc. So I am not sure this is a “detail” of what is being proposed. (I apologize for complicating this but I think we have to ask a question as to how the “finding” should be determined.) In the end, an Objection process may be faster than an ICANN process based on what we saw in 2012. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D46573.2E6D0C90] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 9:56 AM To: Justine Chew; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; steve.chan@icann.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Justine and Anne. I don’t mind asking a question on who people believe should be responsible for making the determination, but the assumption in the drafting of that option was that it would be ICANN that would make the determination. I was a little hesitant to write this e-mail because I can already hear the next question: “What criteria would ICANN use to make that determination….” That takes us down a rabbit hole which we may not need to go down at this point since we are just seeking input on the principle now. If the principle has traction, then we can work more on the details. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 11:13 AM To: AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>; steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Steve and good question Anne. In response, I propose we consider extending the relevant question in the ensuing part e as follows (in blue): * Do you believe instead that there are practical ways to allow some forms of private resolution but disallow others, as indicated in option 3 above? What would be the acceptable or non-acceptable forms of private resolution and why? Who should determine whether parties in a contention set have or have not engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution and how would such a determination be established? Or something along these lines. Justine Chew ----- On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 22:31, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: This looks good Steve – just a question – does our draft say in what manner would parties be “found” to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution? Is it an Objection process or a Complaint process. Who makes the “finding”? Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D46522.30993F30] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 4:44 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Justine Chew'; Jeff Neuman Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Apologies, I hit a shortcut on my keyboard to send the email below prematurely! Here is the sentence: If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) the application not being allowed to proceed – if a Registry Agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a Registry Agreement is signed). The use of “not being allowed to proceed” should be consistent with both of the Applicant Guidebook and the Current Application Status page. Also, “agreement” and “contract” have both been replaced with Registry Agreement. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Date: Monday, October 15, 2018 at 4:39 PM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Justine Chew' <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: "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] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear Anne, Justine, Jeff, all, Based on your suggestions, the sentence has been amended as such: 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: Friday, October 12, 2018 at 3:09 PM To: 'Justine Chew' <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: "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] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC We may want to check the terms used in the new gTLD “status” pages for strings in contention. Language should likely be consistent with what is posted there by icann.org if possible. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D4623D.7CF22C80] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:21 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks for your reply, Jeff. Just on my first question, yes, I don't disagree with your explanation, but I did want to, if possible, establish the intent to the consequence of being found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution. Post AGB, additional statuses for applications were introduced during implementation phase, for eg. "Not Approved". As mentioned before, "withdrawing" implies to me a choice by the applicant, and in fact the "withdrawn" status explicitly states so at https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/advisories/application-contention-s.... Hence I was concerned about the ramification around choice by the applicant, not to mention any 'rights' as to refunds. I wonder if the term "non-approval" might be an appropriate alternative to "withdrawing", although I'm not sure if "non-approval" will then raise further complications to the AGB as drafted. Justine Chew ----- On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 02:34, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Thanks Justine. Your questions are good ones. On the first one, I believe ICANN only uses the terms “withdrawn” or “shall not proceed” in the Guidebook. I don’t believe the word termination is used in connection with an application. So, that is why that term was selected. On the second question the agreement/contract is the ICANN Registry Agreement and I agree with you that we should make it more clear in both parts of that sentence. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 8:45 AM To: steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Could I get some clarity on the proposed text/language regarding the third option as highlighted in yellow below please. * A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution. 1) If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in withdrawing of an application. Should it not result in a termination or dismissal of an application? "Withdrawing" implies that the applicant has a choice, or is that what was intended by author of this text and/or WG? 2) Is the term "agreement" in part (a) meant to be the same thing as the term "contract" in part (b)? Can we be specific about what agreement or contract these are meant to be? Thanks, Justine Chew ----- On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 07:58, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Probably “in addition”. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 9:22 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear Anne, apologies, the email below was sitting unsent. Below is confirmation that your suggestion was integrated, but also a questions/suggestion for your and the WG’s consideration. Your suggestion has been added to the working draft, although I wonder if this is more applicable to the section on change requests, where the topic of string changes is talked about more fully? Specifically, it might make sense to add to this block of text in section 1.4.d instead (or in addition?): Implementation Guidance: Some examples to consider in allowing for a new string to be selected include prepending/appending a new element to the original string or selecting a string that is closely related to the class/sector of the original string. ICANN org must perform a re-evaluation of the new applied-for string in all string related evaluation elements (e.g., DNS Stability, String Contention, etc.) and the application for the new string would be subject to string related objections (e.g., String Confusion Objections, Legal Rights Objections, etc.). The applicant may be responsible for additional, material costs incurred by ICANN due to re-evaluation and the application could be subject to delay. Best, Steve From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@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: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Steve. As mentioned on yesterday’s call, I have comments and language for the last bullet point under 1.2 (d). After considering this language more carefully, please see the following change in red: * A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [lrrc.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY...> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 2:42 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda review/SOIs 2. Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued 3. Planning for ICANN63 4. AOB For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft. For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings [63.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__63.schedule.icann.org_m...>). Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>). Best, Steve 2 Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icanng...> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_&d=DwM...> ________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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.
CPE was a determination not made by ICANN Org but by a contractor, and we still have unsettled contention with such applications till today. Rubens
On 16 Oct 2018, at 21:10, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Jeff – I am personally not too concerned but we do need to understand that when ICANN makes a determination, it can result in years of administrative processes such as Request for Reconsideration and Independent Review Panel. I’m not sure that Contracted Parties really want that determination to be “up in the air” for extended periods of time. It appears that delay is considered deathly in the gTLD launch process – application fees are on file etc. So I am not sure this is a “detail” of what is being proposed. (I apologize for complicating this but I think we have to ask a question as to how the “finding” should be determined.) In the end, an Objection process may be faster than an ICANN process based on what we saw in 2012. Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> office 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>] Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 9:56 AM To: Justine Chew; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Thanks Justine and Anne. I don’t mind asking a question on who people believe should be responsible for making the determination, but the assumption in the drafting of that option was that it would be ICANN that would make the determination.
I was a little hesitant to write this e-mail because I can already hear the next question: “What criteria would ICANN use to make that determination….” That takes us down a rabbit hole which we may not need to go down at this point since we are just seeking input on the principle now. If the principle has traction, then we can work more on the details.
Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President
Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA
D: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:+1.703.635.7514> T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 <tel:+44%2020%207421%208250> E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com <http://www.comlaude.com/>
Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com <http://attachment.com/> Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc.
From: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com <mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 11:13 AM To: AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>; steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Thanks Steve and good question Anne.
In response, I propose we consider extending the relevant question in the ensuing part e as follows (in blue): Do you believe instead that there are practical ways to allow some forms of private resolution but disallow others, as indicated in option 3 above? What would be the acceptable or non-acceptable forms of private resolution and why? Who should determine whether parties in a contention set have or have not engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution and how would such a determination be established? Or something along these lines.
Justine Chew -----
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 22:31, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: This looks good Steve – just a question – does our draft say in what manner would parties be “found” to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution? Is it an Objection process or a Complaint process. Who makes the “finding”? Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> office 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
From: Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 4:44 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Justine Chew'; Jeff Neuman Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Apologies, I hit a shortcut on my keyboard to send the email below prematurely!
Here is the sentence:
If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) the application not being allowed to proceed – if a Registry Agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a Registry Agreement is signed).
The use of “not being allowed to proceed” should be consistent with both of the Applicant Guidebook and the Current Application Status page. Also, “agreement” and “contract” have both been replaced with Registry Agreement.
Best, Steve
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Date: Monday, October 15, 2018 at 4:39 PM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Justine Chew' <justine.chew@gmail.com <mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: "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] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Dear Anne, Justine, Jeff, all,
Based on your suggestions, the sentence has been amended as such:
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: Friday, October 12, 2018 at 3:09 PM To: 'Justine Chew' <justine.chew@gmail.com <mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: "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] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
We may want to check the terms used in the new gTLD “status” pages for strings in contention. Language should likely be consistent with what is posted there by <>icann.org <http://icann.org/> if possible.
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> office 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:21 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Thanks for your reply, Jeff.
Just on my first question, yes, I don't disagree with your explanation, but I did want to, if possible, establish the intent to the consequence of being found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution. Post AGB, additional statuses for applications were introduced during implementation phase, for eg. "Not Approved".
As mentioned before, "withdrawing" implies to me a choice by the applicant, and in fact the "withdrawn" status explicitly states so at https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/advisories/application-contention-s... <https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/advisories/application-contention-s...>. Hence I was concerned about the ramification around choice by the applicant, not to mention any 'rights' as to refunds.
I wonder if the term "non-approval" might be an appropriate alternative to "withdrawing", although I'm not sure if "non-approval" will then raise further complications to the AGB as drafted.
Justine Chew -----
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 02:34, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Thanks Justine.
Your questions are good ones. On the first one, I believe ICANN only uses the terms “withdrawn” or “shall not proceed” in the Guidebook. I don’t believe the word termination is used in connection with an application. So, that is why that term was selected.
On the second question the agreement/contract is the ICANN Registry Agreement and I agree with you that we should make it more clear in both parts of that sentence.
Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President
Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA
D: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:+1.703.635.7514> T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 <tel:+44%2020%207421%208250> E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com <http://www.comlaude.com/>
Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com <http://attachment.com/> Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc.
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 8:45 AM To: steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Could I get some clarity on the proposed text/language regarding the third option as highlighted in yellow below please.
A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution. 1) If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in withdrawing of an application. Should it not result in a termination or dismissal of an application? "Withdrawing" implies that the applicant has a choice, or is that what was intended by author of this text and/or WG?
2) Is the term "agreement" in part (a) meant to be the same thing as the term "contract" in part (b)? Can we be specific about what agreement or contract these are meant to be?
Thanks,
Justine Chew -----
On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 07:58, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Probably “in addition”. Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> office 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
From: Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 9:22 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Dear Anne, apologies, the email below was sitting unsent. Below is confirmation that your suggestion was integrated, but also a questions/suggestion for your and the WG’s consideration.
Your suggestion has been added to the working draft, although I wonder if this is more applicable to the section on change requests, where the topic of string changes is talked about more fully? Specifically, it might make sense to add to this block of text in section 1.4.d instead (or in addition?):
Implementation Guidance: Some examples to consider in allowing for a new string to be selected include prepending/appending a new element to the original string or selecting a string that is closely related to the class/sector of the original string. ICANN org must perform a re-evaluation of the new applied-for string in all string related evaluation elements (e.g., DNS Stability, String Contention, etc.) and the application for the new string would be subject to string related objections (e.g., String Confusion Objections, Legal Rights Objections, etc.). The applicant may be responsible for additional, material costs incurred by ICANN due to re-evaluation and the application could be subject to delay.
Best, Steve
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@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: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Thanks Steve. As mentioned on yesterday’s call, I have comments and language for the last bullet point under 1.2 (d). After considering this language more carefully, please see the following change in red: <>
A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution.
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> office 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [lrrc.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY...>
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 2:42 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Dear WG Members,
Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes.
Agenda review/SOIs Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued Planning for ICANN63 AOB
For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ <https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ>). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft.
For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings [63.schedule.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__63.schedule.icann.org_m...>).
Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>).
Best, Steve 2
Steven Chan > Policy Director, GNSO Support
ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 <tel:+1.310.339.4410> Offic
e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 <tel:+1.310.301.5800> Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 <tel:+1.310.823.8649>
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>.
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icanng...> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_&d=DwM...>
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 <tel: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 <tel: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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
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 <tel: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 <tel: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 <tel: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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
Dear Anne, Just wanted to confirm that your suggestion to include the text in both sections has now been integrated. We will work to get an updated draft, inclusive of this suggestion and others last week, distributed to the WG shortly. Best, Steve From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 4:58 PM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Probably “in addition”. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [lrrc.com] From: Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 9:22 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear Anne, apologies, the email below was sitting unsent. Below is confirmation that your suggestion was integrated, but also a questions/suggestion for your and the WG’s consideration. Your suggestion has been added to the working draft, although I wonder if this is more applicable to the section on change requests, where the topic of string changes is talked about more fully? Specifically, it might make sense to add to this block of text in section 1.4.d instead (or in addition?): Implementation Guidance: Some examples to consider in allowing for a new string to be selected include prepending/appending a new element to the original string or selecting a string that is closely related to the class/sector of the original string. ICANN org must perform a re-evaluation of the new applied-for string in all string related evaluation elements (e.g., DNS Stability, String Contention, etc.) and the application for the new string would be subject to string related objections (e.g., String Confusion Objections, Legal Rights Objections, etc.). The applicant may be responsible for additional, material costs incurred by ICANN due to re-evaluation and the application could be subject to delay. Best, Steve From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Steve. As mentioned on yesterday’s call, I have comments and language for the last bullet point under 1.2 (d). After considering this language more carefully, please see the following change in red: A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [lrrc.com] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 2:42 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda review/SOIs Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued Planning for ICANN63 AOB For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft. For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings [63.schedule.icann.org]). Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org). Best, Steve 2 Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com] Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com] http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.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.
Many thanks Steve. We look forward to this F2F discussion at ICANN63. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D464A4.FB3C8A90] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 4:33 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear Anne, Just wanted to confirm that your suggestion to include the text in both sections has now been integrated. We will work to get an updated draft, inclusive of this suggestion and others last week, distributed to the WG shortly. Best, Steve From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 4:58 PM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@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: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Probably “in addition”. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D460BA.698192F0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [lrrc.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY...> From: Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 9:22 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear Anne, apologies, the email below was sitting unsent. Below is confirmation that your suggestion was integrated, but also a questions/suggestion for your and the WG’s consideration. Your suggestion has been added to the working draft, although I wonder if this is more applicable to the section on change requests, where the topic of string changes is talked about more fully? Specifically, it might make sense to add to this block of text in section 1.4.d instead (or in addition?): Implementation Guidance: Some examples to consider in allowing for a new string to be selected include prepending/appending a new element to the original string or selecting a string that is closely related to the class/sector of the original string. ICANN org must perform a re-evaluation of the new applied-for string in all string related evaluation elements (e.g., DNS Stability, String Contention, etc.) and the application for the new string would be subject to string related objections (e.g., String Confusion Objections, Legal Rights Objections, etc.). The applicant may be responsible for additional, material costs incurred by ICANN due to re-evaluation and the application could be subject to delay. Best, Steve From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@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: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Steve. As mentioned on yesterday’s call, I have comments and language for the last bullet point under 1.2 (d). After considering this language more carefully, please see the following change in red: * A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D45FAA.F2083450] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [lrrc.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY...> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 2:42 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda review/SOIs 2. Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued 3. Planning for ICANN63 4. AOB For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft. For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings [63.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__63.schedule.icann.org_m...>). Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>). Best, Steve 2 Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icanng...> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_&d=DwM...> ________________________________ 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.
participants (5)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Jeff Neuman -
Justine Chew -
Rubens Kuhl -
Steve Chan