Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 4 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 4 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. Continue with Section 1.7 (String Similarity; IDNs; Security and Stability; Applicant Reviews: Technical/Operational, Financial and Registry Services; Name Collisions) 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. As you can see in the link, the following sections have been released: 1.2: Overarching Issues 1.4: Pre-Launch Activities 1.5: Application Submission 1.6: Application Processing 1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria 1.10: Contracting 1.11: Pre-Delegation 1.12: Post-Delegation 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/
My comments on the sections in 1.7 to be discussed Monday are as previously provided last Tuesday in the attached redline beginning on page 36. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D3F992.3FBE3D90] 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: Friday, June 01, 2018 8:51 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 4 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 4 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. * Continue with Section 1.7 (String Similarity; IDNs; Security and Stability; Applicant Reviews: Technical/Operational, Financial and Registry Services; Name Collisions) 4. 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. As you can see in the link, the following sections have been released: 1.2: Overarching Issues 1.4: Pre-Launch Activities 1.5: Application Submission 1.6: Application Processing 1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria 1.10: Contracting 1.11: Pre-Delegation 1.12: Post-Delegation 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/ ________________________________ 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.
Anne, Follows a response for all WT4 items in 1.7. Note that one item is not WT4 so WT2 leadership can answer on it, and some of the WT4 items suggested that different text could be proposed. You might want to take advantage of the opportunity to do so. Rubens
On 1 Jun 2018, at 14:21, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
My comments on the sections in 1.7 to be discussed Monday are as previously provided last Tuesday in the attached redline beginning on page 36.
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, June 01, 2018 8:51 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 4 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 4 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 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>) in advance of the meeting. Continue with Section 1.7 (String Similarity; IDNs; Security and Stability; Applicant Reviews: Technical/Operational, Financial and Registry Services; Name Collisions) 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>. As you can see in the link, the following sections have been released:
1.2: Overarching Issues 1.4: Pre-Launch Activities 1.5: Application Submission 1.6: Application Processing 1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria 1.10: Contracting 1.11: Pre-Delegation 1.12: Post-Delegation
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 <https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ <https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ <http://gnso.icann.org/en/>
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. <Section 1.7 Application Evaluation_Criteria_4May2018 - AEAS redline 28 M....docx>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
Rubens, I will provide additional proposed text for 1.7.8 in the near future. I was very disappointed to see that with respect to my recommended changes to 1.7.7 regarding the policy change in relation to Question 23 of the new gTLD application, your notes are essentially all "change rejected". First I would like to comment that I have no personal stake in the outcome of the discussion as to whether or not new services known at the time of application must be disclosed in the new gTLD application. The sole purpose of my comment in the Work Track and in relation to the draft Initial Report is to highlight an issue that deserves discussion and public comment. By its clear language ( and despite the fact that new services could always be proposed later if developed later) Question 23 required the disclosure of all new proposed services (and any related Security and Stability concerns or issues) concurrent with the filing of the new gTLD application. The Initial Report is supposed to accurately reflect discussions in the Work Track. Please note Question 23 was very definitely discussed in the Work Track, but it does not even appear in the Initial Report as an answer to how matters were handled in the 2012 round. Your rejection of all my redline comments on this section pretends that these discussions did not go on. In fact , they did go on and are well documented. In other words, even if these are minority views in the Work Track, they should be documented in the Initial Report. You may recall that you presented numerous slides on November 30 that were designated as "Rough Consensus" slides. (These even included the word "Consensus" on practically every page.) Later Leadership decided that nothing in the Working Group would be called a consensus at this point and no Consensus Call would be taken. Yet you insist in a recent email that your "single model" presented in San Juan represents the "consensus" and that all of the other discussion that went on in the Work Track is now irrelevant. The requirements for an Initial Report are pasted below: [cid:image004.png@01D3F9B7.78EB3C10] With your rejection of all my proposed changes on this issue, you have put me in the position as a "next step" in this process of having to appeal to the Leadership of the Working Group, in particular to Cheryl, who was Co-Leader of Work Track 4 who assured me on the calls that due account would be taken of comments made, and to Jeff, who assured me in his email to the Work Track 4 list on February 28 that the issues would be accurately captured by staff. Either the Working Group is operating on the principle that Leadership manages the process so that all participants have the opportunity to contribute as is required by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Paragraph 2.2.1 or it is not. The purpose of an Initial Report is to solicit public comment on issues, not to frame issues such that an outcome desired by a "majority" of Subgroup participants is achieved. This is especially important where no Consensus Call has been made since the opportunity to make a published Minority Statement has been bypassed even though the PDP manual says that an Initial Report should include a statement of Consensus levels. Regarding the role of Leadership, reference is made to the applicable Working Group Guidelines below: [cid:image003.png@01D3F9B6.666697C0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D3F9BD.69D15CE0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br] Sent: Friday, June 01, 2018 1:50 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Steve Chan; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 4 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC Anne, Follows a response for all WT4 items in 1.7. Note that one item is not WT4 so WT2 leadership can answer on it, and some of the WT4 items suggested that different text could be proposed. You might want to take advantage of the opportunity to do so. Rubens ________________________________ 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.
Anne, Responses inline.
On 1 Jun 2018, at 19:30, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Rubens, I will provide additional proposed text for 1.7.8 in the near future.
I was very disappointed to see that with respect to my recommended changes to 1.7.7 regarding the policy change in relation to Question 23 of the new gTLD application, your notes are essentially all “change rejected”. First I would like to comment that I have no personal stake in the outcome of the discussion as to whether or not new services known at the time of application must be disclosed in the new gTLD application.
I also have no personal stake in them, since both my day job and the revenue of my employer is 99.99% derived from ccTLD operations, although I don't see that as problem for leadership; we have members in the PDP leadership that might have personal stakes and even so for the last years I've never seen any of them putting a personal agenda ahead of the PDP progression effort.
The sole purpose of my comment in the Work Track and in relation to the draft Initial Report is to highlight an issue that deserves discussion and public comment. By its clear language ( and despite the fact that new services could always be proposed later if developed later) Question 23 required the disclosure of all new proposed services (and any related Security and Stability concerns or issues) concurrent with the filing of the new gTLD application.
It did, and nothing in the report said otherwise. "Registry Services Evaluation: Served to evaluate each application’s proposed registry services for any possible adverse impact to the security and stability of the DNS."
" The Initial Report is supposed to accurately reflect discussions in the Work Track. Please note Question 23 was very definitely discussed in the Work Track, but it does not even appear in the Initial Report as an answer to how matters were handled in the 2012 round. Your rejection of all my redline comments on this section pretends that these discussions did not go on. In fact , they did go on and are well documented.
In technical and financial evaluation, we needed to accurately point questions since they consisted of multiple questions. Registry services consisted of a single question, question 23, and that's why we don't mention the number specifically in the report, since the focus is on content. The group definitively looked at the evaluation questions of all 3 evaluation types, and I don't see how the report as it stands could be read differently.
In other words, even if these are minority views in the Work Track, they should be documented in the Initial Report.
Specifically in the case of registry services, what you describe as minority views ended up being the adopted views (requirement to identify services, for instance), so I don't see how we could describe them as minority instead of prevailing views. We had such a case in financial evaluation, and that is throughly documented.
You may recall that you presented numerous slides on November 30 that were designated as “Rough Consensus” slides. (These even included the word “Consensus” on practically every page.) Later Leadership decided that nothing in the Working Group would be called a consensus at this point and no Consensus Call would be taken. Yet you insist in a recent email that your “single model” presented in San Juan represents the “consensus” and that all of the other discussion that went on in the Work Track is now irrelevant. The requirements for an Initial Report are pasted below:
It was the model that was composed out of the discussion and a model that didn't had opposition during San Juan, as indicated in both transcription, audio recording and now the Adobe Connection session recording, which is again available. We didn't use the word consensus in San Juan exactly following leadership guidance, so mentioning old slides seems not applicable to this discussion.
<image004.png>
With your rejection of all my proposed changes on this issue, you have put me in the position as a “next step” in this process of having to appeal to the Leadership of the Working Group, in particular to Cheryl, who was Co-Leader of Work Track 4 who assured me on the calls that due account would be taken of comments made, and to Jeff, who assured me in his email to the Work Track 4 list on February 28 that the issues would be accurately captured by staff.
They are subscribed to the list.
Either the Working Group is operating on the principle that Leadership manages the process so that all participants have the opportunity to contribute as is required by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Paragraph 2.2.1 or it is not. The purpose of an Initial Report is to solicit public comment on issues, not to frame issues such that an outcome desired by a “majority” of Subgroup participants is achieved.
And still, the WT outcome suggested in the report is totally different from what my, in personal capacity and not as co-chair, opinion... so I'm puzzled why that outcome would imply steering of it. On the contrary, I see the final registry services model as being a mix of your's and Kurt Pritz's suggestions. Which is fine, I don't see this process as competition, and every step is taken to avoid ad-hominem evaluation. Something that I would like to see membership applying as well.
This is especially important where no Consensus Call has been made since the opportunity to make a published Minority Statement has been bypassed even though the PDP manual says that an Initial Report should include a statement of Consensus levels.
As the co-chairs already mentioned, minority statements are not part of the initial report, but will be part of the final report. Even so, some divergent ideas are indeed present in the report, without being officially called minority statements. In this particular case we can't have an idea that made it as main outcome also be a divergent position... it would be simply illogical. Rubens
Regarding the role of Leadership, reference is made to the applicable Working Group Guidelines below:
<image003.png>
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image002.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>] Sent: Friday, June 01, 2018 1:50 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Steve Chan; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 4 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC
Anne,
Follows a response for all WT4 items in 1.7. Note that one item is not WT4 so WT2 leadership can answer on it, and some of the WT4 items suggested that different text could be proposed. You might want to take advantage of the opportunity to do so.
Rubens
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Thanks Steve. For AOB, I heard that the worktrack co-chairs recently briefed the GAC. Not sure if it was the entire GAC or leadership of some other subset. I don’t believe we’ve heard anything on the plenary calls about this so could we get a report on what was covered and any reactions from those GAC members on the call? Thanks On Jun 1, 2018, at 7:50 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote: Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for 4 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. * Continue with Section 1.7 (String Similarity; IDNs; Security and Stability; Applicant Reviews: Technical/Operational, Financial and Registry Services; Name Collisions) 4. 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. As you can see in the link, the following sections have been released: 1.2: Overarching Issues 1.4: Pre-Launch Activities 1.5: Application Submission 1.6: Application Processing 1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria 1.10: Contracting 1.11: Pre-Delegation 1.12: Post-Delegation 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/ <Section 1.7 Application Evaluation_Criteria_4May2018[1].pdf> <Section 1.7 Application Evaluation_Criteria_4May2018.docx> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Jim, Just to clarify, are you referring to the call on May 23rd between the GNSO Council leadership and the GAC? At that meeting, the GNSO Council Chair invited both Cheryl and I on the call to talk about SubPro from a PDP Process standpoint (eg., how we were formed, the types of activities we have been engaged in, who can participate, etc.). Is that the call you are referring to? I am not aware of any other briefing before the GAC that the work chairs have participated in or are invite to. Thanks. 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 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jim Prendergast Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2018 12:32 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 4 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC Thanks Steve. For AOB, I heard that the worktrack co-chairs recently briefed the GAC. Not sure if it was the entire GAC or leadership of some other subset. I don’t believe we’ve heard anything on the plenary calls about this so could we get a report on what was covered and any reactions from those GAC members on the call? Thanks On Jun 1, 2018, at 7:50 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote: Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for 4 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. * Continue with Section 1.7 (String Similarity; IDNs; Security and Stability; Applicant Reviews: Technical/Operational, Financial and Registry Services; Name Collisions) 1. 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. As you can see in the link, the following sections have been released: 1.2: Overarching Issues 1.4: Pre-Launch Activities 1.5: Application Submission 1.6: Application Processing 1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria 1.10: Contracting 1.11: Pre-Delegation 1.12: Post-Delegation 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/ <Section 1.7 Application Evaluation_Criteria_4May2018[1].pdf> <Section 1.7 Application Evaluation_Criteria_4May2018.docx> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
I received the comments below from Rubens on Questions to be put out for public comment on Name Collisions Section 1.7.8 – my notes for the discussion (requested by Rubens) appear in the comment box: [cid:image003.png@01D3FBFC.7F97C6E0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D3FBFC.7FDE6CD0] 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 Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 11:49 AM To: Jim Prendergast; Steve Chan Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 4 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC Jim, Just to clarify, are you referring to the call on May 23rd between the GNSO Council leadership and the GAC? At that meeting, the GNSO Council Chair invited both Cheryl and I on the call to talk about SubPro from a PDP Process standpoint (eg., how we were formed, the types of activities we have been engaged in, who can participate, etc.). Is that the call you are referring to? I am not aware of any other briefing before the GAC that the work chairs have participated in or are invite to. Thanks. 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 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jim Prendergast Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2018 12:32 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 4 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC Thanks Steve. For AOB, I heard that the worktrack co-chairs recently briefed the GAC. Not sure if it was the entire GAC or leadership of some other subset. I don’t believe we’ve heard anything on the plenary calls about this so could we get a report on what was covered and any reactions from those GAC members on the call? Thanks On Jun 1, 2018, at 7:50 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote: Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for 4 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. * Continue with Section 1.7 (String Similarity; IDNs; Security and Stability; Applicant Reviews: Technical/Operational, Financial and Registry Services; Name Collisions) 1. 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. As you can see in the link, the following sections have been released: 1.2: Overarching Issues 1.4: Pre-Launch Activities 1.5: Application Submission 1.6: Application Processing 1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria 1.10: Contracting 1.11: Pre-Delegation 1.12: Post-Delegation 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/ <Section 1.7 Application Evaluation_Criteria_4May2018[1].pdf> <Section 1.7 Application Evaluation_Criteria_4May2018.docx> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
participants (5)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Jeff Neuman -
Jim Prendergast -
Rubens Kuhl -
Steve Chan