Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC
Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for 14 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda Review Roll Call/SOIs Review of the Initial Report (continued). * The purpose of this review is to ensure that preliminary outcomes and deliberations are accurately captured and written in an understandable manner. The WG Co-Chairs have sought to make clear that this exercise is not intended to re-open substantive discussions, which is better served by the submission of public comments and subsequently when reviewing public comments received. Please submit your comments about these sections to the Working Group mailing list (gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org) in advance of the meeting. Review of Section 1.8 (Objections; Accountability Mechanisms) Review of Section 1.9 (Community Applications) Next Steps AOB For Item 3, the relevant documents are attached. As a reminder, please note that a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB. With the release of section 1.9 and as you can see in the link, all preliminary draft sections have now been released. 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 Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/
Robin, Karen et al. Regarding Section 1.9 dealing with Community applications, what is missing is the concern I expressed several times regarding the trend in Work Track 3 to venture into assessments about the “goals and purposes” of community applications. The 2012 round specifically included numerous “types” of communities, including economic communities. On more than one call, I mentioned that we need to respect applicant freedom of speech and association in the realm of community evaluations in the same manner that we urge in relation to considering Objections. The Applicant’s Freedom of Speech Principle should apply across the Board to the program. The language from the draft below tends toward an assessment of the content of community applications and extends beyond ICANN’s mission. As I mentioned several times, IC ANN should not be making content-based value judgments about the purpose of a Community TLD. The question of the definition of “community” should not be determined by whether someone within ICANN believes that the purpose of a certain community application is a good purpose or not. Some of the draft Initial Report language that needs to be examined in this regard is: If the ICANN community still desires to have community-based applications receive priority over other applications for the same string, there is general agreement that a clearer definition of the term “community” is needed, though it has proven difficult in coming up with a mutually acceptable definition. In determining how to define “community” applicants, the Work Track has considered the overall purpose and goal of the “community” concept in the TLD process (i.e., what are we trying to achieve by giving certain groups preferential treatment in the TLD process?). By asking "what public interest goal are we intending to achieve?", we can begin to understand how to define “community” in a way that guides its application in the TLD process. One suggestion is that protecting minority or disadvantaged communities' “identity” and their ability to self-identify, self-associate, and organize in the domain name system is among the goals of the “community” process. The Work Track developed a draft definition that has been discussed with the wider community, but it received minimal support.[1] As a next step towards establishing a definition, the WT will take input from the community to better understand the purpose and goal of having community-based applications in the New gTLD Program. It is true that the above considerations were discussed in the Work Track at length based on the agenda provided by the Work Track Leadership. However, it was also carefully noted that this suggestion is a content and purpose-based evaluation rather than a content-neutral definition of “Community” in the application process. You may also recall that I cited to the EU Commission Report on Community Applications, which identified one PURPOSE of Community Applications as FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION. This form of freedom of expression should not be subject to value judgments from the ICANN community about what sort of freedom of association should be supported in the TLD environment. Such value judgments may be appropriate to Applicant Support programs, but are not appropriate to evaluation of community applications. The other thing that is odd about this is that while we “pooh-pooh” GAC Advice in an earlier section, we laud the comments made by some GAC members on this topic even though it was not GAC Consensus Advice. Why do we lay so much emphasis on GAC observations here and insist their advice should not be sought on individual strings? I will be happy to propose various edits after the discussion on the call. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D40344.0776E980] 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 Steve Chan Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:33 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for 14 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda Review 2. Roll Call/SOIs 3. Review of the Initial Report (continued). * The purpose of this review is to ensure that preliminary outcomes and deliberations are accurately captured and written in an understandable manner. The WG Co-Chairs have sought to make clear that this exercise is not intended to re-open substantive discussions, which is better served by the submission of public comments and subsequently when reviewing public comments received. Please submit your comments about these sections to the Working Group mailing list (gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>) in advance of the meeting. * Review of Section 1.8 (Objections; Accountability Mechanisms) * Review of Section 1.9 (Community Applications) 4. Next Steps 5. AOB For Item 3, the relevant documents are attached. As a reminder, please note that a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB. With the release of section 1.9 and as you can see in the link, all preliminary draft sections have now been released. 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 Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/ ________________________________ [1] See “strawbunny” here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yKuFzTgIel53nxM9tOWgoH6evMTk4wdxVreVH2m1t0o/edit?usp=sharing[docs.google.com<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yKuFzTgIel53nxM9tOWgoH6evMTk4wdxVreVH2m1t0o/edit?usp=sharing%5Bdocs.google.com> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Further to the email below, please find an excerpt from the Council of Europe report on Community applications (at page 21). Freedom of Association was discussed as a primary benefit of Community applications, but now we are talking about approving or disapproving who will be encouraged to freely associate by weighing in on the purpose and content of the TLD. I believe this is dangerous. The issue should be clearly outlined for public comment, as mentioned many times in the Work Track 3 calls. Anne [cid:image001.png@01D403DE.E29AB600] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D403DF.38B0ACC0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 6:26 PM To: 'Steve Chan'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Cc: Jeff Neuman; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC Robin, Karen et al. Regarding Section 1.9 dealing with Community applications, what is missing is the concern I expressed several times regarding the trend in Work Track 3 to venture into assessments about the “goals and purposes” of community applications. The 2012 round specifically included numerous “types” of communities, including economic communities. On more than one call, I mentioned that we need to respect applicant freedom of speech and association in the realm of community evaluations in the same manner that we urge in relation to considering Objections. The Applicant’s Freedom of Speech Principle should apply across the Board to the program. The language from the draft below tends toward an assessment of the content of community applications and extends beyond ICANN’s mission. As I mentioned several times, IC ANN should not be making content-based value judgments about the purpose of a Community TLD. The question of the definition of “community” should not be determined by whether someone within ICANN believes that the purpose of a certain community application is a good purpose or not. Some of the draft Initial Report language that needs to be examined in this regard is: If the ICANN community still desires to have community-based applications receive priority over other applications for the same string, there is general agreement that a clearer definition of the term “community” is needed, though it has proven difficult in coming up with a mutually acceptable definition. In determining how to define “community” applicants, the Work Track has considered the overall purpose and goal of the “community” concept in the TLD process (i.e., what are we trying to achieve by giving certain groups preferential treatment in the TLD process?). By asking "what public interest goal are we intending to achieve?", we can begin to understand how to define “community” in a way that guides its application in the TLD process. One suggestion is that protecting minority or disadvantaged communities' “identity” and their ability to self-identify, self-associate, and organize in the domain name system is among the goals of the “community” process. The Work Track developed a draft definition that has been discussed with the wider community, but it received minimal support.[1] As a next step towards establishing a definition, the WT will take input from the community to better understand the purpose and goal of having community-based applications in the New gTLD Program. It is true that the above considerations were discussed in the Work Track at length based on the agenda provided by the Work Track Leadership. However, it was also carefully noted that this suggestion is a content and purpose-based evaluation rather than a content-neutral definition of “Community” in the application process. You may also recall that I cited to the EU Commission Report on Community Applications, which identified one PURPOSE of Community Applications as FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION. This form of freedom of expression should not be subject to value judgments from the ICANN community about what sort of freedom of association should be supported in the TLD environment. Such value judgments may be appropriate to Applicant Support programs, but are not appropriate to evaluation of community applications. The other thing that is odd about this is that while we “pooh-pooh” GAC Advice in an earlier section, we laud the comments made by some GAC members on this topic even though it was not GAC Consensus Advice. Why do we lay so much emphasis on GAC observations here and insist their advice should not be sought on individual strings? I will be happy to propose various edits after the discussion on the call. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image005.png@01D403DE.E29AB600] 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 Steve Chan Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:33 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 - 14 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for 14 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda Review 2. Roll Call/SOIs 3. Review of the Initial Report (continued). * The purpose of this review is to ensure that preliminary outcomes and deliberations are accurately captured and written in an understandable manner. The WG Co-Chairs have sought to make clear that this exercise is not intended to re-open substantive discussions, which is better served by the submission of public comments and subsequently when reviewing public comments received. Please submit your comments about these sections to the Working Group mailing list (gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>) in advance of the meeting. * Review of Section 1.8 (Objections; Accountability Mechanisms) * Review of Section 1.9 (Community Applications) 4. Next Steps 5. AOB For Item 3, the relevant documents are attached. As a reminder, please note that a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB. With the release of section 1.9 and as you can see in the link, all preliminary draft sections have now been released. 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 Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/ ________________________________ ________________________________ [1] See “strawbunny” here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yKuFzTgIel53nxM9tOWgoH6evMTk4wdxVreVH2m1t0o/edit?usp=sharing[docs.google.com<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yKuFzTgIel53nxM9tOWgoH6evMTk4wdxVreVH2m1t0o/edit?usp=sharing%5Bdocs.google.com> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Good afternoon: Section 1.8 Dispute Proceedings Christopher Wilkinson, 14 June 2018 1.8.1. Objections In the light of the extensive discussion of objections, their 2012 antecedents, their procedures and costs, allow me to mention that the authorization/non-objection requirements for applications are also being discussed in Work Track 5 (Geographical Names). Several WT5 Members (including myself among others) have argued that the 2012 objection procedures are quite inappropriate for Geographical Names. In this context, I consider that all applications for geographical names should benefit from appropriate prior approval or non-objection from the competent community or public authority. The discussion in Section 1.8.1 (pp. 4-18) goes a long way towards reconfirming this point of view. ICANN cannot expect that all the government and local authorities, world-wide, together with related communities, would have the resources to monitor the whole new gTLD process in order to 'catch' each and every application that might concern their interests and eventual rights, including those for 'non-geographical' use. The procedures, restrictions and high costs of objections, as described, are inappropriate when applied to applications for geographical names. All such applications should benefit from prior endorsement by the stakeholders most directly concerned. This pre-condition should also normally obviate the need for subsequent objection procedures. ----------------------------- Regards Christopher Wilkinson
El 14 de junio de 2018 a las 2:32 Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> escribió:
Dear WG Members,
Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for 14 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC, for 90 minutes.
1. Agenda Review 2. Roll Call/SOIs 3. Review of the Initial Report (continued). * The purpose of this review is to ensure that preliminary outcomes and deliberations are accurately captured and written in an understandable manner. The WG Co-Chairs have sought to make clear that this exercise is not intended to re-open substantive discussions, which is better served by the submission of public comments and subsequently when reviewing public comments received. Please submit your comments about these sections to the Working Group mailing list (gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org ) in advance of the meeting. 1. Review of Section 1.8 (Objections; Accountability Mechanisms) 2. Review of Section 1.9 (Community Applications) 4. Next Steps 5. AOB
For Item 3, the relevant documents are attached. As a reminder, please note that a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB . With the release of section 1.9 and as you can see in the link, all preliminary draft sections have now been released.
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
Steven Chan
Policy Director, GNSO Support
ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
steve.chan@icann.org mailto:steve.chan@icann.org
mobile: +1.310.339.4410
office tel: +1.310.301.5800
office fax: +1.310.823.8649
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e... .
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO
Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
participants (3)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson -
Steve Chan