Or more appropriately phrased, How would you as Co-Chair, facilitate discussion on the matters in 1 – 4 below and are some worth more time than others in the discussion? Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D33DF3.FD9F5020] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2017 4:03 PM To: 'Jeff Neuman'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD) QUESTION FOR ALL THE CANDIDATES (SINCE I’M SURE THEY HAVE ALL THOUGHT ABOUT THIS): How do you propose to balance the interests of governments with those of other applicants for names that do not constitute city or country names, but have some “geographic identity”? (Please consider regions, rivers, etc.) Would you 1. Give priority to government-based applications in the event there are competing applications for the same name? 2. Establish a Government Objection process whereby competing interests could be weighed? If so, what criteria would be measured by the Panel that could result in a successful Government Objection Process? 3. Require government approval for all applications having “geographic identity” even if not a city or country name? 4. Give priority to brand applications if the brand (that is not a city or country) has long-standing trademark recognition and value independent of its “geographic identity”? Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D33DF3.FD807D80] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2017 8:09 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD) All, As discussed on our last call, Avri, Cheryl and I have asked each of the candidates for the GNSO Co-Leader position on Work Track 5 (GNSO Co-Leader) if they would object to public disclosure of their names and expressions of interest for the position. I am happy to report that each of the candidates have agreed. In addition, we received one additional candidate since our last meeting. Nominations for candidates are now closed. The four candidates for the GNSO Co-Leader position are (in alphabetical order): 1. Ching Chiao 2. Carlos Raul Gutierrez 3. Greg Shatan 4. Martin Sutton I have attached each of their expressions of interest. By the publication of these names, the leadership of the SubPro PDP Working Group is kicking off a discussion period on the candidates. Keeping in mind ICANN’s standards of expected behavior, questions and comments about the candidates may now be posted. If you have a question for one or more particular candidates, please make sure that you include the words “QUESTION FOR _________” in the subject or QUESTION FOR ALL CANDIDATES. This is not required, but will help us keep track of all the questions so that we can make sure that they are answered. Finally, ass discussed, it is our intention as a leadership team (The Co-Leaders of the full working group along with the WT 1-4 co-leaders) to discuss our recommendation on our next call scheduled for Monday, October 9th based on the discussions, comments and questions on this list. Please let us know if you have any questions. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw ________________________________ 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.

Agreed. Discussion of potential co-chairs should be purely procedural, and should not involve discussion of substantive WG issues. I imagine the WG Guidelines might have some guidance on that point, which Staff might please point out? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:

Perhaps I am being naïve, but is the answer not contained in your question ?

The job of a co-chair is to facilitate discussion.

The group decides what is worth more time or not. The Chairs job is to facilitate the will of the group.

A chair is not a CEO. They do not lead. They facilitate. They keep the group on point and moving forward productively.

I am not sure we should be choosing a chair based on their opinions of specific issues. To me, it is far more important they understand the role of chair as opposed to what their opinion on any one issue is.

Rob.

*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Date: *Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 7:07 PM *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Jeff Neuman' < jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD)

Or more appropriately phrased, How would you as Co-Chair, facilitate discussion on the matters in 1 – 4 below and are some worth more time than others in the discussion?

*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office

520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax

AAikman@lrrc.com

_____________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com

*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Sent:* Thursday, October 05, 2017 4:03 PM *To:* 'Jeff Neuman'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD)

QUESTION FOR ALL THE CANDIDATES (SINCE I’M SURE THEY HAVE ALL THOUGHT ABOUT THIS):

How do you propose to balance the interests of governments with those of other applicants for names that do not constitute city or country names, but have some “geographic identity”? (Please consider regions, rivers, etc.)

Would you

1. Give priority to government-based applications in the event there are competing applications for the same name?

1. Establish a Government Objection process whereby competing interests could be weighed? If so, what criteria would be measured by the Panel that could result in a successful Government Objection Process?

1. Require government approval for all applications having “geographic identity” even if not a city or country name?

1. Give priority to brand applications if the brand (that is not a city or country) has long-standing trademark recognition and value independent of its “geographic identity”?

*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office

520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax

AAikman@lrrc.com

_____________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com

*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman *Sent:* Sunday, October 01, 2017 8:09 AM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD)

All,

As discussed on our last call, Avri, Cheryl and I have asked each of the candidates for the GNSO Co-Leader position on Work Track 5 (GNSO Co-Leader) if they would object to public disclosure of their names and expressions of interest for the position. I am happy to report that each of the candidates have agreed. In addition, we received one additional candidate since our last meeting. Nominations for candidates are now closed.

The four candidates for the GNSO Co-Leader position are (in alphabetical order):

1. Ching Chiao 2. Carlos Raul Gutierrez 3. Greg Shatan 4. Martin Sutton

I have attached each of their expressions of interest. By the publication of these names, the leadership of the SubPro PDP Working Group is kicking off a discussion period on the candidates. Keeping in mind ICANN’s standards of expected behavior, questions and comments about the candidates may now be posted. If you have a question for one or more particular candidates, please make sure that you include the words “QUESTION FOR _________” in the subject or QUESTION FOR ALL CANDIDATES. This is not required, but will help us keep track of all the questions so that we can make sure that they are answered.

Finally, ass discussed, it is our intention as a leadership team (The Co-Leaders of the full working group along with the WT 1-4 co-leaders) to discuss our recommendation on our next call scheduled for Monday, October 9 th based on the discussions, comments and questions on this list.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Best regards,

*Jeffrey J. Neuman*

*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*

1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600

Mclean, VA 22102, United States

E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com

T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514>

M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079>

@Jintlaw

------------------------------

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

Mike, Rob, Anne, all, Indeed, the role of Chair is to manage the process. Please see section 2.2.1 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines here:  https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf and additional detail in the description attached. While perhaps a minor point, I’d note that the WG is seeking to appoint a GNSO co-lead for a sub team rather than a WG chair, though the guidance is likely still relevant and informative. Best, Steve From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 4:51 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD) Agreed. Discussion of potential co-chairs should be purely procedural, and should not involve discussion of substantive WG issues. I imagine the WG Guidelines might have some guidance on that point, which Staff might please point out? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote: Perhaps I am being naïve, but is the answer not contained in your question ? The job of a co-chair is to facilitate discussion. The group decides what is worth more time or not. The Chairs job is to facilitate the will of the group. A chair is not a CEO. They do not lead. They facilitate. They keep the group on point and moving forward productively. I am not sure we should be choosing a chair based on their opinions of specific issues. To me, it is far more important they understand the role of chair as opposed to what their opinion on any one issue is. Rob. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 7:07 PM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD) Or more appropriately phrased, How would you as Co-Chair, facilitate discussion on the matters in 1 – 4 below and are some worth more time than others in the discussion? 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 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2017 4:03 PM To: 'Jeff Neuman'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD) QUESTION FOR ALL THE CANDIDATES (SINCE I’M SURE THEY HAVE ALL THOUGHT ABOUT THIS): How do you propose to balance the interests of governments with those of other applicants for names that do not constitute city or country names, but have some “geographic identity”? (Please consider regions, rivers, etc.) Would you Give priority to government-based applications in the event there are competing applications for the same name? Establish a Government Objection process whereby competing interests could be weighed? If so, what criteria would be measured by the Panel that could result in a successful Government Objection Process? Require government approval for all applications having “geographic identity” even if not a city or country name? Give priority to brand applications if the brand (that is not a city or country) has long-standing trademark recognition and value independent of its “geographic identity”? 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 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2017 8:09 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD) All, As discussed on our last call, Avri, Cheryl and I have asked each of the candidates for the GNSO Co-Leader position on Work Track 5 (GNSO Co-Leader) if they would object to public disclosure of their names and expressions of interest for the position. I am happy to report that each of the candidates have agreed. In addition, we received one additional candidate since our last meeting. Nominations for candidates are now closed. The four candidates for the GNSO Co-Leader position are (in alphabetical order): Ching Chiao Carlos Raul Gutierrez Greg Shatan Martin Sutton I have attached each of their expressions of interest. By the publication of these names, the leadership of the SubPro PDP Working Group is kicking off a discussion period on the candidates. Keeping in mind ICANN’s standards of expected behavior, questions and comments about the candidates may now be posted. If you have a question for one or more particular candidates, please make sure that you include the words “QUESTION FOR _________” in the subject or QUESTION FOR ALL CANDIDATES. This is not required, but will help us keep track of all the questions so that we can make sure that they are answered. Finally, ass discussed, it is our intention as a leadership team (The Co-Leaders of the full working group along with the WT 1-4 co-leaders) to discuss our recommendation on our next call scheduled for Monday, October 9th based on the discussions, comments and questions on this list. Please let us know if you have any questions. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw 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

Hello Anne, I trust your second question is palatable to all involved. In any case I would like to give it a try. So lets discuss it because I'm afraid i carry a lot of ideas with me and I hope I can apply them in a positive way. If it disqualifies me for the role of a Co-Chair, so let it be! I have few points to make, based on recent experience where the Co-Chairs are expected to play an important role: 1. *Looking for clear defined boundaries* of the discussion: I think that the <*dot.cities*> in the last round have been successful to certain degree: at least they are proof that there is demand for some category (this word has been selected on purpose) of GeoNames, that is much narrower than just <Country and Territory Names>. In that sense the WT5 should be able to make progress beyond the previous ccNSO WG on the one side, and the previous ccNSO-GNSO CWG on the other. So we need to recognize the necessity to go BEYOND Country and Territory names, just because <dot.cities> and <dot.geo-adjectives> like .swiss have stepped forward without many restrictions. 2. *Being based in permission-less innovation*: I'm a strong believer that the expansion of the DNS is a window to innovation, as the previous round shows and my first point proves (dot.cities), even if the registration numbers are how-ever low. I think that delegation®istration is a better path forward than any list of protected names (as the recent case of a famous river shows!). So I believe there should be an expansion in GeoNames for competition purposes, but also to open up space for some cultural and linguistic values*,* without having to dicsuss those value other than the geographic are where do you find them. The reason why this is necessary, is based just in the fac that we have already made space for new gTLDs for purely linguistic reasons, as it is the case of the IDNs. 3. *Looking forward to a strong consensus for the recommendations*: I think the WT5 has to avoid coming up with a long laundry list of ideas trying to please everybody, and look for a minimum set of recommendations that is carried by a very very strong consensus so it really survives into the next round. 4. *Respect for established rules of the game*. In my expression of interest I tried to make clear that some pieces of the cake, like (a) the 2-letter codes for Country and Territory names is the basis for the ccTLDs and (b) the global standard for trademarks are not for grabs! They have been there for quite some time and it is not our task to try to change them (even if I don't like them a lot...) So, in a nutshell I'm not afraid to say that I think I better represent the GNSO in terms of being: * positively pro-expansion of the DNS space for the interest of smaller and less business oritned groups of people, and ** pro policy based general frameworks (as opposed to restrictive lists) than if I try to would represent either the GACs, the ccNSO or ALACs in the WT5 Leadership (ALAC being the other part of the community I could have considered representing). So, my cards are on the table dear Anne. And I hope that by following up the 4 rules above (and any other that you or the WT5 may agree on) my prejudices and appetites will be kept under control! I wish you all a nice and quiet weekend, while we mourn in Costa Rica the few deaths and destruction of tropical storm Nate, which is hitting us hard even if much lighter than other recent storms. Hope Nicaragua and Honduras don't suffer too much today and tomorrow. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:

Great reminder. I think that what I was trying to get at was the issue of bias and pre-conceived notions.

SO THE QUESTION TO ALL CANDIDATES IS:

How will you avoid bringing pre-conceived desired outcomes into the discussion in your role as Co-Chair?

*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office

520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax

AAikman@lrrc.com

_____________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com

*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Steve Chan *Sent:* Thursday, October 05, 2017 6:32 PM *To:* Mike Rodenbaugh; Rob Hall *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org

*Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD)

Mike, Rob, Anne, all,

Indeed, the role of Chair is to manage the process. Please see section 2.2.1 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg- guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf and additional detail in the description attached.

While perhaps a minor point, I’d note that the WG is seeking to appoint a GNSO co-lead for a sub team rather than a WG chair, though the guidance is likely still relevant and informative.

Best,

Steve

*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mike Rodenbaugh < mike@rodenbaugh.com> *Date: *Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 4:51 PM *To: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD)

Agreed. Discussion of potential co-chairs should be purely procedural, and should not involve discussion of substantive WG issues. I imagine the WG Guidelines might have some guidance on that point, which Staff might please point out?

Thanks,

Mike

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <(415)%20738-8087>

http://rodenbaugh.com

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:

Perhaps I am being naïve, but is the answer not contained in your question ?

The job of a co-chair is to facilitate discussion.

The group decides what is worth more time or not. The Chairs job is to facilitate the will of the group.

A chair is not a CEO. They do not lead. They facilitate. They keep the group on point and moving forward productively.

I am not sure we should be choosing a chair based on their opinions of specific issues. To me, it is far more important they understand the role of chair as opposed to what their opinion on any one issue is.

Rob.

*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Date: *Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 7:07 PM *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Jeff Neuman' < jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD)

Or more appropriately phrased, How would you as Co-Chair, facilitate discussion on the matters in 1 – 4 below and are some worth more time than others in the discussion?

*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office

520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax

AAikman@lrrc.com

_____________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com

*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Sent:* Thursday, October 05, 2017 4:03 PM *To:* 'Jeff Neuman'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD)

QUESTION FOR ALL THE CANDIDATES (SINCE I’M SURE THEY HAVE ALL THOUGHT ABOUT THIS):

How do you propose to balance the interests of governments with those of other applicants for names that do not constitute city or country names, but have some “geographic identity”? (Please consider regions, rivers, etc.)

Would you

1. Give priority to government-based applications in the event there are competing applications for the same name?

1. Establish a Government Objection process whereby competing interests could be weighed? If so, what criteria would be measured by the Panel that could result in a successful Government Objection Process?

1. Require government approval for all applications having “geographic identity” even if not a city or country name?

1. Give priority to brand applications if the brand (that is not a city or country) has long-standing trademark recognition and value independent of its “geographic identity”?

*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office

520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax

AAikman@lrrc.com

_____________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com

*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman *Sent:* Sunday, October 01, 2017 8:09 AM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD)

All,

As discussed on our last call, Avri, Cheryl and I have asked each of the candidates for the GNSO Co-Leader position on Work Track 5 (GNSO Co-Leader) if they would object to public disclosure of their names and expressions of interest for the position. I am happy to report that each of the candidates have agreed. In addition, we received one additional candidate since our last meeting. Nominations for candidates are now closed.

The four candidates for the GNSO Co-Leader position are (in alphabetical order):

1. Ching Chiao 2. Carlos Raul Gutierrez 3. Greg Shatan 4. Martin Sutton

I have attached each of their expressions of interest. By the publication of these names, the leadership of the SubPro PDP Working Group is kicking off a discussion period on the candidates. Keeping in mind ICANN’s standards of expected behavior, questions and comments about the candidates may now be posted. If you have a question for one or more particular candidates, please make sure that you include the words “QUESTION FOR _________” in the subject or QUESTION FOR ALL CANDIDATES. This is not required, but will help us keep track of all the questions so that we can make sure that they are answered.

Finally, ass discussed, it is our intention as a leadership team (The Co-Leaders of the full working group along with the WT 1-4 co-leaders) to discuss our recommendation on our next call scheduled for Monday, October 9 th based on the discussions, comments and questions on this list.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Best regards,

*Jeffrey J. Neuman*

*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*

1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600

Mclean, VA 22102, United States

E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com

T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514>

M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079>

@Jintlaw

------------------------------

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.

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

Anne, To answer your question: "How will you avoid bringing pre-conceived desired outcomes into the discussion in your role as Co-Chair?" I think that neutrality is at the core of being a group or subgroup chair or co-chair. It's critical not to begin with preconceived notions, which will only keep the co-chair from identifying fruitful discussions and seeing emerging consensus. It's important to keep an open mind, and be constantly able to learn and digest knowledge. There will be many different perspectives, and many different stakeholders who do have preconceived notions. The co-chairs need to rise above all that. They need to monitor themselves (and perhaps each other) to avoid getting sucked into preconceived outcomes or positions. They co-chairs need to help the group find their own answers. But they also have to help others in the group to keep (or in many cases, gain) an open mind. The co-chairs will need to move people away from positions and toward dialogue, and then move from dialogue to "common ground". I have particularly admired Working Group chairs who are able to move the discussion along, without any appearance of a desired outcome or a viewpoint But neutrality is not the same thing as being a blank slate. I think it's both necessary and appropriate to bring some principles into the role. If sound principles and methods are used, the group will have the best chance of achieving a sound outcome, whatever it may be. Principles that are important to me: -- Develop a good work plan and stick to it, but not slavishly. Some flexibility and improvisation is important, so that the group can get beyond preconceived notions. At the same time, working group and subgroups have a beginning, a middle and an end. If you can't get to the end, that's not a good outcome. Even ending a group well-explored divergence is preferable to getting marooned in an endless middle. -- Respect facts. We can all learn from facts, and we should try to understand the various facts and issues at play. There may be times when some participant refuse to accept facts, or refuse to accept others in the group as having a grasp of the facts. Sometimes, we've needed to turn to outside experts to come in, and they almost always tell us what most had already accepted. Nonetheless, it can be useful to do so when some participants are wary of others and don't feel they can trust that they are being told the neutral facts. -- Respect laws, but avoid being legalistic -- for our purposes, laws can almost be seen as facts. They are part of the fixed landscape we need to deal with. On the other hand, we need to help the group look beyond the law to consider policy and values, and to remember fundamentals that may have been more apparent before the lawyers got here and ruined everything. :-) Permissionless innovation is one such fundamental (that's not the same thing as lawless innovation, of course, but the point is to leave as much room as possible for organic growth and change. -- Try to keep the group concentrating on substance and try to minimize procedural tussles, gamesmanship, "litigation" and rhetoric. There are lots of ways a group can lose time, lose its way or lose momentum. Fatigue over non-substantive matters can grind the life out of a group before serious substance is discussed. -- Give a discussion room to grow and develop, but don't be (too) afraid to try to pick out possible areas of consensus and encourage their development. If the co-chair lets the conversation meander, or get hijacked, or get stuck going in circles, the chance of something fruitful coming out of it goes down and down as things drag on. Help the group separate the wheat from the chaff, but be fair in doing so. I will admit to one preconceived notion, though I don't think it is a preconceived outcome. I believe that a GNSO PDP Working Group is the right place for these issues to be tackled. As a Supporting Organization, we have one overarching job, which is to develop, in Working Groups open to all, policy recommendations for gTLDs. The GNSO is not itself a "stakeholder organization" and I think that needs to be emphasized. We don't represent a single point of view, and the "private sector" is not a single group or a type of "special interest." We do come together in the desire for a better Internet (even if we don't agree completely on what that means) and a desire not to lose an ethos that guided the Internet from the beginning. The Internet itself is voluntary and transcends boundaries. Finally, I have no preconceived notions as an IP/tech lawyer about where this should end up, and no client, organization or group that I have to answer to (other than the GNSO as a whole). Both in terms of time commitment and neutrality, I think it's important to let you know that my term as IPC President will end in less than two months, which will free me up (in more ways than one) to take on this responsibility. Thank you for your consideration. Greg On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:

Many thanks Carlos for your thoughtful answers and not being afraid to go to substance. I have always understood the role of a Co-Chair (and in fact have insisted on that role being followed quite recently in a different subteam). I assume all four candidates are qualified to assume a Co-Chair role and just wanted to dig a bit deeper and you have done that. Your comments make sense to me and reflect a very thoughtful approach.

Very sorry indeed about the hurricane – and wishing Costa Rica a rapid recovery.

Anne

*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office

520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax

AAikman@lrrc.com

_____________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com

*From:* Carlos Raul Gutierrez [mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org] *Sent:* Friday, October 06, 2017 2:19 AM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Cc:* Steve Chan; Mike Rodenbaugh; Rob Hall; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org

*Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD)

Hello Anne,

I trust your second question is palatable to all involved. In any case I would like to give it a try.

So lets discuss it because I'm afraid i carry a lot of ideas with me and I hope I can apply them in a positive way. If it disqualifies me for the role of a Co-Chair, so let it be!

I have few points to make, based on recent experience where the Co-Chairs are expected to play an important role:

1. *Looking for clear defined boundaries* of the discussion: I think that the <*dot.cities*> in the last round have been successful to certain degree: at least they are proof that there is demand for some category (this word has been selected on purpose) of GeoNames, that is much narrower than just <Country and Territory Names>. In that sense the WT5 should be able to make progress beyond the previous ccNSO WG on the one side, and the previous ccNSO-GNSO CWG on the other. So we need to recognize the necessity to go BEYOND Country and Territory names, just because <dot.cities> and <dot.geo-adjectives> like .swiss have stepped forward without many restrictions.

2. *Being based in permission-less innovation*: I'm a strong believer that the expansion of the DNS is a window to innovation, as the previous round shows and my first point proves (dot.cities), even if the registration numbers are how-ever low. I think that delegation®istration is a better path forward than any list of protected names (as the recent case of a famous river shows!). So I believe there should be an expansion in GeoNames for competition purposes, but also to open up space for some cultural and linguistic values*,* without having to dicsuss those value other than the geographic are where do you find them. The reason why this is necessary, is based just in the fac that we have already made space for new gTLDs for purely linguistic reasons, as it is the case of the IDNs. 3. *Looking forward to a strong consensus for the recommendations*: I think the WT5 has to avoid coming up with a long laundry list of ideas trying to please everybody, and look for a minimum set of recommendations that is carried by a very very strong consensus so it really survives into the next round.

4. *Respect for established rules of the game*. In my expression of interest I tried to make clear that some pieces of the cake, like (a) the 2-letter codes for Country and Territory names is the basis for the ccTLDs and (b) the global standard for trademarks are not for grabs! They have been there for quite some time and it is not our task to try to change them (even if I don't like them a lot...)

So, in a nutshell I'm not afraid to say that I think I better represent the GNSO in terms of being:

* positively pro-expansion of the DNS space for the interest of smaller and less business oritned groups of people, and

** pro policy based general frameworks (as opposed to restrictive lists)

than if I try to would represent either the GACs, the ccNSO or ALACs in the WT5 Leadership (ALAC being the other part of the community I could have considered representing).

So, my cards are on the table dear Anne. And I hope that by following up the 4 rules above (and any other that you or the WT5 may agree on) my prejudices and appetites will be kept under control!

I wish you all a nice and quiet weekend, while we mourn in Costa Rica the few deaths and destruction of tropical storm Nate, which is hitting us hard even if much lighter than other recent storms. Hope Nicaragua and Honduras don't suffer too much today and tomorrow.

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 <+506%208837%207176> ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:

Great reminder. I think that what I was trying to get at was the issue of bias and pre-conceived notions.

SO THE QUESTION TO ALL CANDIDATES IS:

How will you avoid bringing pre-conceived desired outcomes into the discussion in your role as Co-Chair?

*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office

520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax

AAikman@lrrc.com

_____________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com

*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Steve Chan *Sent:* Thursday, October 05, 2017 6:32 PM *To:* Mike Rodenbaugh; Rob Hall *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org

*Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD)

Mike, Rob, Anne, all,

Indeed, the role of Chair is to manage the process. Please see section 2.2.1 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg- guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf and additional detail in the description attached.

While perhaps a minor point, I’d note that the WG is seeking to appoint a GNSO co-lead for a sub team rather than a WG chair, though the guidance is likely still relevant and informative.

Best,

Steve

*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mike Rodenbaugh < mike@rodenbaugh.com> *Date: *Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 4:51 PM *To: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD)

Agreed. Discussion of potential co-chairs should be purely procedural, and should not involve discussion of substantive WG issues. I imagine the WG Guidelines might have some guidance on that point, which Staff might please point out?

Thanks,

Mike

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <(415)%20738-8087>

http://rodenbaugh.com

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:

Perhaps I am being naïve, but is the answer not contained in your question ?

The job of a co-chair is to facilitate discussion.

The group decides what is worth more time or not. The Chairs job is to facilitate the will of the group.

A chair is not a CEO. They do not lead. They facilitate. They keep the group on point and moving forward productively.

I am not sure we should be choosing a chair based on their opinions of specific issues. To me, it is far more important they understand the role of chair as opposed to what their opinion on any one issue is.

Rob.

*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Date: *Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 7:07 PM *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Jeff Neuman' < jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD)

Or more appropriately phrased, How would you as Co-Chair, facilitate discussion on the matters in 1 – 4 below and are some worth more time than others in the discussion?

*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office

520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax

AAikman@lrrc.com

_____________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com

*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Sent:* Thursday, October 05, 2017 4:03 PM *To:* 'Jeff Neuman'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD)

QUESTION FOR ALL THE CANDIDATES (SINCE I’M SURE THEY HAVE ALL THOUGHT ABOUT THIS):

How do you propose to balance the interests of governments with those of other applicants for names that do not constitute city or country names, but have some “geographic identity”? (Please consider regions, rivers, etc.)

Would you

1. Give priority to government-based applications in the event there are competing applications for the same name?

1. Establish a Government Objection process whereby competing interests could be weighed? If so, what criteria would be measured by the Panel that could result in a successful Government Objection Process?

1. Require government approval for all applications having “geographic identity” even if not a city or country name?

1. Give priority to brand applications if the brand (that is not a city or country) has long-standing trademark recognition and value independent of its “geographic identity”?

*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office

520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax

AAikman@lrrc.com

_____________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com

*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman *Sent:* Sunday, October 01, 2017 8:09 AM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD)

All,

As discussed on our last call, Avri, Cheryl and I have asked each of the candidates for the GNSO Co-Leader position on Work Track 5 (GNSO Co-Leader) if they would object to public disclosure of their names and expressions of interest for the position. I am happy to report that each of the candidates have agreed. In addition, we received one additional candidate since our last meeting. Nominations for candidates are now closed.

The four candidates for the GNSO Co-Leader position are (in alphabetical order):

1. Ching Chiao 2. Carlos Raul Gutierrez 3. Greg Shatan 4. Martin Sutton

I have attached each of their expressions of interest. By the publication of these names, the leadership of the SubPro PDP Working Group is kicking off a discussion period on the candidates. Keeping in mind ICANN’s standards of expected behavior, questions and comments about the candidates may now be posted. If you have a question for one or more particular candidates, please make sure that you include the words “QUESTION FOR _________” in the subject or QUESTION FOR ALL CANDIDATES. This is not required, but will help us keep track of all the questions so that we can make sure that they are answered.

Finally, ass discussed, it is our intention as a leadership team (The Co-Leaders of the full working group along with the WT 1-4 co-leaders) to discuss our recommendation on our next call scheduled for Monday, October 9 th based on the discussions, comments and questions on this list.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Best regards,

*Jeffrey J. Neuman*

*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*

1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600

Mclean, VA 22102, United States

E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com

T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514>

M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079>

@Jintlaw

------------------------------

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.

_______________________________________________ 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.

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

Fully agreed with Jeff and others -- the general principle of a WG group leader/chair for *ANY* WG group in ICANN is to make sure he/she stays neutral, understands the member's interest -- by reminding the members to update SOI from time to time, and facilitates discussion in which loud minority, cold majority, members who join the work regularly or sporadically, etc., can weigh in as they wish. The co-leaders should form a leadership team that is able to move things forward instead of making authoritative, pre-conceived decisions. Pre-conceived decisions are bad because only small selected groups or people gain interests, and they are definitely not healthy for the long-term prosperity for our community and industry built around it. Anne, I still appreciate your question and the opportunity to reply -- if you're asking my responses to any pre-conceived position on geo names / TLDs, my brief answers are: 1) No I do not have any pre-conceived position other than what's implemented on the AGP. 2) Like many others on the list, I have some professional experiences as a gTLD registry operator / ccTLD registry operator / new gTLD applicant / corporate registrar / digital brand consultant. These experiences helped shape what I know about a particular topic, like IDNs and GeoTLDs where one can still find rooms for improvement. I look forward to our collective efforts to make things easier for the applicants in subsequent round(s). 3) You can be assured that, if selected, I will make it clear when I speak as a co-leader role (representing GNSO's interest) or my personal capacity. Hope it helps. Thanks again for the opportunity. Best regards, Ching On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:

Thanks Steve. I agree with the comments of Mike and the others. We need neutrality in the leadership and a person that can facilitate discussion rather than advocate for a particular position. That said he or she should make sure that the GNSO point of view or points of view are being represented along with the other groups. I am grateful to have so many qualified volunteers to choose from.

Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude USA / Valideus USA 1751 Pinnacle Dr., Suite 600 McLean, VA 22102 Jeff.Neuman@comlaude.com +1 (202) 549-5079 <(202)%20549-5079>

On Oct 5, 2017, at 9:31 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:

Mike, Rob, Anne, all,

Indeed, the role of Chair is to manage the process. Please see section 2.2.1 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg- guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf and additional detail in the description attached.

While perhaps a minor point, I’d note that the WG is seeking to appoint a GNSO co-lead for a sub team rather than a WG chair, though the guidance is likely still relevant and informative.

Best,

Steve

*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mike Rodenbaugh < mike@rodenbaugh.com> *Date: *Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 4:51 PM *To: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD)

Agreed. Discussion of potential co-chairs should be purely procedural, and should not involve discussion of substantive WG issues. I imagine the WG Guidelines might have some guidance on that point, which Staff might please point out?

Thanks,

Mike

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <(415)%20738-8087>

http://rodenbaugh.com

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:

Perhaps I am being naïve, but is the answer not contained in your question ?

The job of a co-chair is to facilitate discussion.

The group decides what is worth more time or not. The Chairs job is to facilitate the will of the group.

A chair is not a CEO. They do not lead. They facilitate. They keep the group on point and moving forward productively.

I am not sure we should be choosing a chair based on their opinions of specific issues. To me, it is far more important they understand the role of chair as opposed to what their opinion on any one issue is.

Rob.

*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Date: *Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 7:07 PM *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Jeff Neuman' < jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD)

Or more appropriately phrased, How would you as Co-Chair, facilitate discussion on the matters in 1 – 4 below and are some worth more time than others in the discussion?

*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office

520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax

AAikman@lrrc.com

_____________________________

<image001.png>

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com

*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Sent:* Thursday, October 05, 2017 4:03 PM *To:* 'Jeff Neuman'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD)

QUESTION FOR ALL THE CANDIDATES (SINCE I’M SURE THEY HAVE ALL THOUGHT ABOUT THIS):

How do you propose to balance the interests of governments with those of other applicants for names that do not constitute city or country names, but have some “geographic identity”? (Please consider regions, rivers, etc.)

Would you

1. Give priority to government-based applications in the event there are competing applications for the same name?

1. Establish a Government Objection process whereby competing interests could be weighed? If so, what criteria would be measured by the Panel that could result in a successful Government Objection Process?

1. Require government approval for all applications having “geographic identity” even if not a city or country name?

1. Give priority to brand applications if the brand (that is not a city or country) has long-standing trademark recognition and value independent of its “geographic identity”?

*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office

520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax

AAikman@lrrc.com

_____________________________

<image002.png>

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com

*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman *Sent:* Sunday, October 01, 2017 8:09 AM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD)

All,

As discussed on our last call, Avri, Cheryl and I have asked each of the candidates for the GNSO Co-Leader position on Work Track 5 (GNSO Co-Leader) if they would object to public disclosure of their names and expressions of interest for the position. I am happy to report that each of the candidates have agreed. In addition, we received one additional candidate since our last meeting. Nominations for candidates are now closed.

The four candidates for the GNSO Co-Leader position are (in alphabetical order):

1. Ching Chiao 2. Carlos Raul Gutierrez 3. Greg Shatan 4. Martin Sutton

I have attached each of their expressions of interest. By the publication of these names, the leadership of the SubPro PDP Working Group is kicking off a discussion period on the candidates. Keeping in mind ICANN’s standards of expected behavior, questions and comments about the candidates may now be posted. If you have a question for one or more particular candidates, please make sure that you include the words “QUESTION FOR _________” in the subject or QUESTION FOR ALL CANDIDATES. This is not required, but will help us keep track of all the questions so that we can make sure that they are answered.

Finally, ass discussed, it is our intention as a leadership team (The Co-Leaders of the full working group along with the WT 1-4 co-leaders) to discuss our recommendation on our next call scheduled for Monday, October 9 th based on the discussions, comments and questions on this list.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Best regards,

*Jeffrey J. Neuman*

*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*

1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600

Mclean, VA 22102, United States

E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com

T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514>

M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079>

@Jintlaw

------------------------------

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

<GNSO_WG_Chair_description[1].pdf>

<image001.png>

<image002.png>

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

-- Ching Chiao Founder & CEO Brandma Internet Group 中域国际集团 www.brandma.com +886.918.211372 || +86.135.2018.7032 || +1.908.4990050 Beijing . Chengdu . Hangzhou . Hong Kong . Shenzhen. Taipei

A chair is meant to steer a group and remain relatively impartial. All of these questions are assuming foregone conclusions and are anything but impartial so I don’t really understand why they’re being asked Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Friday 6 October 2017 at 00:03 To: 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD) QUESTION FOR ALL THE CANDIDATES (SINCE I’M SURE THEY HAVE ALL THOUGHT ABOUT THIS): How do you propose to balance the interests of governments with those of other applicants for names that do not constitute city or country names, but have some “geographic identity”? (Please consider regions, rivers, etc.) Would you 1. Give priority to government-based applications in the event there are competing applications for the same name? 1. Establish a Government Objection process whereby competing interests could be weighed? If so, what criteria would be measured by the Panel that could result in a successful Government Objection Process? 1. Require government approval for all applications having “geographic identity” even if not a city or country name? 1. Give priority to brand applications if the brand (that is not a city or country) has long-standing trademark recognition and value independent of its “geographic identity”? Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D33DF3.74EDDFD0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2017 8:09 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD) All, As discussed on our last call, Avri, Cheryl and I have asked each of the candidates for the GNSO Co-Leader position on Work Track 5 (GNSO Co-Leader) if they would object to public disclosure of their names and expressions of interest for the position. I am happy to report that each of the candidates have agreed. In addition, we received one additional candidate since our last meeting. Nominations for candidates are now closed. The four candidates for the GNSO Co-Leader position are (in alphabetical order): 1. Ching Chiao 2. Carlos Raul Gutierrez 3. Greg Shatan 4. Martin Sutton I have attached each of their expressions of interest. By the publication of these names, the leadership of the SubPro PDP Working Group is kicking off a discussion period on the candidates. Keeping in mind ICANN’s standards of expected behavior, questions and comments about the candidates may now be posted. If you have a question for one or more particular candidates, please make sure that you include the words “QUESTION FOR _________” in the subject or QUESTION FOR ALL CANDIDATES. This is not required, but will help us keep track of all the questions so that we can make sure that they are answered. Finally, ass discussed, it is our intention as a leadership team (The Co-Leaders of the full working group along with the WT 1-4 co-leaders) to discuss our recommendation on our next call scheduled for Monday, October 9th based on the discussions, comments and questions on this list. Please let us know if you have any questions. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw ________________________________ 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.