Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 9 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 9 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda Review Roll Call/SOIs Recap of ICANN61 Introduction to the Initial Report AOB For item 4 of the agenda, we will be reviewing one section of the draft Initial Report. Attached, please find an extract of the section on Post-Delegation, which includes three topics. 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/
Thanks Steve for sending this excerpt around. All, Just a few points before the call in a couple of hours (and we will be going over this again). The main purpose of our review of the Initial Report material is to ensure that the report faithfully represents the discussions that have already taken place within the applicable Work Track (or for the overall issues within the Working Group), the comments we received in CC1 and CC2 as well as the results of the various reviews that have already taken place. We are trying to make sure that we have adequately captured recommendations (where recommendations were made) as well as the deliberations that took place, while at the same time, making sure that our report is not 1000 pages. Therefore, in reviewing the material, now is NOT the time to bring up new issues, new arguments, or to try and convince the group to take a position one way or the other. You will notice that some of the sections (Eg., 1.12.3e) have questions that we will be putting out for public comment. On the call today, and in reviewing the Initial Report in general, we are not going to be discussing answers (or potential answers to those questions). Our goal is to make sure that the questions being asked are clear and are of the type that we want to be asking based on the deliberations of the specific work track that discussed the issue. If there are additional questions we should be asking, now is the time to make sure we get those included. This is going to be a tough exercise for all of us (and I am including myself). Our natural tendency is to try and answer the questions we are presenting, or to try and convince the rest of the group why our position should be adopted. But for now, we are going to do our best to focus the discussions on (i) the format of the report, (ii) ensuring the content reflects accurately the discussions that took place (and comments received) and (iii) making sure that clear, concise and pointed questions are being asked as part of the comment period to elicit the type of responses that will aid our Working Group in making final recommendations in each of these areas. Talk to you all in a few hours. 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 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, April 6, 2018 3:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 9 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 9 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda Review 2. Roll Call/SOIs 3. Recap of ICANN61 4. Introduction to the Initial Report 5. AOB For item 4 of the agenda, we will be reviewing one section of the draft Initial Report. Attached, please find an extract of the section on Post-Delegation, which includes three topics. 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/
Jeff – I’m not sure I ever saw a response from the leadership regarding some of the issues raised regarding whether this is in fact an initial report or discussion draft. For background, I pasted the email immediately below this message It came out during a time when many, including myself, were on holiday so easily missed. I do think addressing these point in Greg’s email would be beneficial. Could we put that under AOB? Thanks Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202 285 3699 @jimpren Message From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 12:33 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; cw@christopherwilkinson.eu; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org; Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>; Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps I would like to raise a potential concern regarding the preliminary report/final report plan for this WG. Unlike most preliminary reports, this one will have a great many open issues and undecided options. As a result, the first time that the community will see the draft recommendations of the WG will be the final report, a role usually played by the preliminary report. That leaves us no room for error or uncertainty in the final report -- we can't bring it out for comment with significant open issues, if this is really intended to be the final report. That will result in a heavy lift to get this into "final" form straight from a fairly unsettled question-filled preliminary report. And what if the comments result in significant changes in the final report -- what happens? Do we have a supplemental final report (not really contemplated by the Charter)? An alternative approach could be to put this report out as a "discussion draft," intended to spur discussion, and then follow that with the preliminary report with our "beta version" and then the final report. There is precedent for working groups making requests to the community for input or comments or information during the pendency of their work. This would allow the preliminary report to play its usual role. Of course, this could raise timing issues. On the other hand, the cynic in me says that this plan to put out an undercooked preliminary report is intended to put timing ahead of fidelity to the PDP process. I'm not advocating form for the sake of form. Rather I think there are good reasons why the preliminary report is intended to be almost-ready-for-prime-time report, and not a sandbox/workshop/open kitchen for the community to join our "fun" and deliberations. (Maybe it's the "home version" of the Working Group....) Failing that, I think we have to brace ourselves for the possibility that we could need a supplemental final draft. I suppose the advantage of that is that we look like we're on schedule for the next year or so.... Just my 2 cents, Greg From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 9:04 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 9 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Steve for sending this excerpt around. All, Just a few points before the call in a couple of hours (and we will be going over this again). The main purpose of our review of the Initial Report material is to ensure that the report faithfully represents the discussions that have already taken place within the applicable Work Track (or for the overall issues within the Working Group), the comments we received in CC1 and CC2 as well as the results of the various reviews that have already taken place. We are trying to make sure that we have adequately captured recommendations (where recommendations were made) as well as the deliberations that took place, while at the same time, making sure that our report is not 1000 pages. Therefore, in reviewing the material, now is NOT the time to bring up new issues, new arguments, or to try and convince the group to take a position one way or the other. You will notice that some of the sections (Eg., 1.12.3e) have questions that we will be putting out for public comment. On the call today, and in reviewing the Initial Report in general, we are not going to be discussing answers (or potential answers to those questions). Our goal is to make sure that the questions being asked are clear and are of the type that we want to be asking based on the deliberations of the specific work track that discussed the issue. If there are additional questions we should be asking, now is the time to make sure we get those included. This is going to be a tough exercise for all of us (and I am including myself). Our natural tendency is to try and answer the questions we are presenting, or to try and convince the rest of the group why our position should be adopted. But for now, we are going to do our best to focus the discussions on (i) the format of the report, (ii) ensuring the content reflects accurately the discussions that took place (and comments received) and (iii) making sure that clear, concise and pointed questions are being asked as part of the comment period to elicit the type of responses that will aid our Working Group in making final recommendations in each of these areas. Talk to you all in a few hours. 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 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, April 6, 2018 3:20 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 - 9 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 9 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda Review 2. Roll Call/SOIs 3. Recap of ICANN61 4. Introduction to the Initial Report 5. AOB For item 4 of the agenda, we will be reviewing one section of the draft Initial Report. Attached, please find an extract of the section on Post-Delegation, which includes three topics. 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/
I agree with Jim and had also supported Greg’s comment on this issue. This should definitely be added to AOB and we probably need 5 to 10 minutes to discuss this. Thank you Jeff. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D3CFD6.264CE180] 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 Jim Prendergast Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 7:39 AM To: Jeff Neuman; Steve Chan; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 9 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC Jeff – I’m not sure I ever saw a response from the leadership regarding some of the issues raised regarding whether this is in fact an initial report or discussion draft. For background, I pasted the email immediately below this message It came out during a time when many, including myself, were on holiday so easily missed. I do think addressing these point in Greg’s email would be beneficial. Could we put that under AOB? Thanks Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202 285 3699 @jimpren Message From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 12:33 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; cw@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>; Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com<mailto:javrua@gmail.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps I would like to raise a potential concern regarding the preliminary report/final report plan for this WG. Unlike most preliminary reports, this one will have a great many open issues and undecided options. As a result, the first time that the community will see the draft recommendations of the WG will be the final report, a role usually played by the preliminary report. That leaves us no room for error or uncertainty in the final report -- we can't bring it out for comment with significant open issues, if this is really intended to be the final report. That will result in a heavy lift to get this into "final" form straight from a fairly unsettled question-filled preliminary report. And what if the comments result in significant changes in the final report -- what happens? Do we have a supplemental final report (not really contemplated by the Charter)? An alternative approach could be to put this report out as a "discussion draft," intended to spur discussion, and then follow that with the preliminary report with our "beta version" and then the final report. There is precedent for working groups making requests to the community for input or comments or information during the pendency of their work. This would allow the preliminary report to play its usual role. Of course, this could raise timing issues. On the other hand, the cynic in me says that this plan to put out an undercooked preliminary report is intended to put timing ahead of fidelity to the PDP process. I'm not advocating form for the sake of form. Rather I think there are good reasons why the preliminary report is intended to be almost-ready-for-prime-time report, and not a sandbox/workshop/open kitchen for the community to join our "fun" and deliberations. (Maybe it's the "home version" of the Working Group....) Failing that, I think we have to brace ourselves for the possibility that we could need a supplemental final draft. I suppose the advantage of that is that we look like we're on schedule for the next year or so.... Just my 2 cents, Greg From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 9:04 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 9 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Steve for sending this excerpt around. All, Just a few points before the call in a couple of hours (and we will be going over this again). The main purpose of our review of the Initial Report material is to ensure that the report faithfully represents the discussions that have already taken place within the applicable Work Track (or for the overall issues within the Working Group), the comments we received in CC1 and CC2 as well as the results of the various reviews that have already taken place. We are trying to make sure that we have adequately captured recommendations (where recommendations were made) as well as the deliberations that took place, while at the same time, making sure that our report is not 1000 pages. Therefore, in reviewing the material, now is NOT the time to bring up new issues, new arguments, or to try and convince the group to take a position one way or the other. You will notice that some of the sections (Eg., 1.12.3e) have questions that we will be putting out for public comment. On the call today, and in reviewing the Initial Report in general, we are not going to be discussing answers (or potential answers to those questions). Our goal is to make sure that the questions being asked are clear and are of the type that we want to be asking based on the deliberations of the specific work track that discussed the issue. If there are additional questions we should be asking, now is the time to make sure we get those included. This is going to be a tough exercise for all of us (and I am including myself). Our natural tendency is to try and answer the questions we are presenting, or to try and convince the rest of the group why our position should be adopted. But for now, we are going to do our best to focus the discussions on (i) the format of the report, (ii) ensuring the content reflects accurately the discussions that took place (and comments received) and (iii) making sure that clear, concise and pointed questions are being asked as part of the comment period to elicit the type of responses that will aid our Working Group in making final recommendations in each of these areas. Talk to you all in a few hours. 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 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, April 6, 2018 3:20 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 - 9 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 9 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda Review 2. Roll Call/SOIs 3. Recap of ICANN61 4. Introduction to the Initial Report 5. AOB For item 4 of the agenda, we will be reviewing one section of the draft Initial Report. Attached, please find an extract of the section on Post-Delegation, which includes three topics. 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.
I support…. good way forward.
On Apr 9, 2018, at 18:41, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
I agree with Jim and had also supported Greg’s comment on this issue. This should definitely be added to AOB and we probably need 5 to 10 minutes to discuss this. Thank you Jeff. Anne
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 Jim Prendergast Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 7:39 AM To: Jeff Neuman; 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 - 9 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Jeff – I’m not sure I ever saw a response from the leadership regarding some of the issues raised regarding whether this is in fact an initial report or discussion draft. For background, I pasted the email immediately below this message It came out during a time when many, including myself, were on holiday so easily missed.
I do think addressing these point in Greg’s email would be beneficial. Could we put that under AOB?
Thanks
Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202 285 3699 @jimpren
Message
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 12:33 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>; Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com <mailto:javrua@gmail.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps
I would like to raise a potential concern regarding the preliminary report/final report plan for this WG. Unlike most preliminary reports, this one will have a great many open issues and undecided options. As a result, the first time that the community will see the draft recommendations of the WG will be the final report, a role usually played by the preliminary report. That leaves us no room for error or uncertainty in the final report -- we can't bring it out for comment with significant open issues, if this is really intended to be the final report. That will result in a heavy lift to get this into "final" form straight from a fairly unsettled question-filled preliminary report. And what if the comments result in significant changes in the final report -- what happens? Do we have a supplemental final report (not really contemplated by the Charter)?
An alternative approach could be to put this report out as a "discussion draft," intended to spur discussion, and then follow that with the preliminary report with our "beta version" and then the final report. There is precedent for working groups making requests to the community for input or comments or information during the pendency of their work. This would allow the preliminary report to play its usual role.
Of course, this could raise timing issues. On the other hand, the cynic in me says that this plan to put out an undercooked preliminary report is intended to put timing ahead of fidelity to the PDP process. I'm not advocating form for the sake of form. Rather I think there are good reasons why the preliminary report is intended to be almost-ready-for-prime-time report, and not a sandbox/workshop/open kitchen for the community to join our "fun" and deliberations. (Maybe it's the "home version" of the Working Group....)
Failing that, I think we have to brace ourselves for the possibility that we could need a supplemental final draft. I suppose the advantage of that is that we look like we're on schedule for the next year or so....
Just my 2 cents,
Greg
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 9:04 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 9 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Thanks Steve for sending this excerpt around.
All,
Just a few points before the call in a couple of hours (and we will be going over this again). The main purpose of our review of the Initial Report material is to ensure that the report faithfully represents the discussions that have already taken place within the applicable Work Track (or for the overall issues within the Working Group), the comments we received in CC1 and CC2 as well as the results of the various reviews that have already taken place. We are trying to make sure that we have adequately captured recommendations (where recommendations were made) as well as the deliberations that took place, while at the same time, making sure that our report is not 1000 pages. Therefore, in reviewing the material, now is NOT the time to bring up new issues, new arguments, or to try and convince the group to take a position one way or the other.
You will notice that some of the sections (Eg., 1.12.3e) have questions that we will be putting out for public comment. On the call today, and in reviewing the Initial Report in general, we are not going to be discussing answers (or potential answers to those questions). Our goal is to make sure that the questions being asked are clear and are of the type that we want to be asking based on the deliberations of the specific work track that discussed the issue. If there are additional questions we should be asking, now is the time to make sure we get those included.
This is going to be a tough exercise for all of us (and I am including myself). Our natural tendency is to try and answer the questions we are presenting, or to try and convince the rest of the group why our position should be adopted. But for now, we are going to do our best to focus the discussions on (i) the format of the report, (ii) ensuring the content reflects accurately the discussions that took place (and comments received) and (iii) making sure that clear, concise and pointed questions are being asked as part of the comment period to elicit the type of responses that will aid our Working Group in making final recommendations in each of these areas.
Talk to you all in a few hours.
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
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, April 6, 2018 3:20 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 - 9 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Dear WG Members,
Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 9 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda Review Roll Call/SOIs Recap of ICANN61 Introduction to the Initial Report AOB For item 4 of the agenda, we will be reviewing one section of the draft Initial Report. Attached, please find an extract of the section on Post-Delegation, which includes three topics. 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. _______________________________________________ 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>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
Thanks Jim. We will address this as one of the first items on the call today. 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: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM> Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 10:39 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 9 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC Jeff – I’m not sure I ever saw a response from the leadership regarding some of the issues raised regarding whether this is in fact an initial report or discussion draft. For background, I pasted the email immediately below this message It came out during a time when many, including myself, were on holiday so easily missed. I do think addressing these point in Greg’s email would be beneficial. Could we put that under AOB? Thanks Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202 285 3699 @jimpren Message From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 12:33 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; cw@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>; Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com<mailto:javrua@gmail.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps I would like to raise a potential concern regarding the preliminary report/final report plan for this WG. Unlike most preliminary reports, this one will have a great many open issues and undecided options. As a result, the first time that the community will see the draft recommendations of the WG will be the final report, a role usually played by the preliminary report. That leaves us no room for error or uncertainty in the final report -- we can't bring it out for comment with significant open issues, if this is really intended to be the final report. That will result in a heavy lift to get this into "final" form straight from a fairly unsettled question-filled preliminary report. And what if the comments result in significant changes in the final report -- what happens? Do we have a supplemental final report (not really contemplated by the Charter)? An alternative approach could be to put this report out as a "discussion draft," intended to spur discussion, and then follow that with the preliminary report with our "beta version" and then the final report. There is precedent for working groups making requests to the community for input or comments or information during the pendency of their work. This would allow the preliminary report to play its usual role. Of course, this could raise timing issues. On the other hand, the cynic in me says that this plan to put out an undercooked preliminary report is intended to put timing ahead of fidelity to the PDP process. I'm not advocating form for the sake of form. Rather I think there are good reasons why the preliminary report is intended to be almost-ready-for-prime-time report, and not a sandbox/workshop/open kitchen for the community to join our "fun" and deliberations. (Maybe it's the "home version" of the Working Group....) Failing that, I think we have to brace ourselves for the possibility that we could need a supplemental final draft. I suppose the advantage of that is that we look like we're on schedule for the next year or so.... Just my 2 cents, Greg From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 9:04 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 9 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Steve for sending this excerpt around. All, Just a few points before the call in a couple of hours (and we will be going over this again). The main purpose of our review of the Initial Report material is to ensure that the report faithfully represents the discussions that have already taken place within the applicable Work Track (or for the overall issues within the Working Group), the comments we received in CC1 and CC2 as well as the results of the various reviews that have already taken place. We are trying to make sure that we have adequately captured recommendations (where recommendations were made) as well as the deliberations that took place, while at the same time, making sure that our report is not 1000 pages. Therefore, in reviewing the material, now is NOT the time to bring up new issues, new arguments, or to try and convince the group to take a position one way or the other. You will notice that some of the sections (Eg., 1.12.3e) have questions that we will be putting out for public comment. On the call today, and in reviewing the Initial Report in general, we are not going to be discussing answers (or potential answers to those questions). Our goal is to make sure that the questions being asked are clear and are of the type that we want to be asking based on the deliberations of the specific work track that discussed the issue. If there are additional questions we should be asking, now is the time to make sure we get those included. This is going to be a tough exercise for all of us (and I am including myself). Our natural tendency is to try and answer the questions we are presenting, or to try and convince the rest of the group why our position should be adopted. But for now, we are going to do our best to focus the discussions on (i) the format of the report, (ii) ensuring the content reflects accurately the discussions that took place (and comments received) and (iii) making sure that clear, concise and pointed questions are being asked as part of the comment period to elicit the type of responses that will aid our Working Group in making final recommendations in each of these areas. Talk to you all in a few hours. 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 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, April 6, 2018 3:20 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 - 9 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 9 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda Review 2. Roll Call/SOIs 3. Recap of ICANN61 4. Introduction to the Initial Report 5. AOB For item 4 of the agenda, we will be reviewing one section of the draft Initial Report. Attached, please find an extract of the section on Post-Delegation, which includes three topics. 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/
Thanks Jeff. I think one item we will need to discuss is the use of phrases like “preliminary recommendations” in the Initial Report. I am not sure that using this phrase is appropriate in a situation where there has actually been no consensus call and thus no true “preliminary recommendation” made by the Work Track. It almost seems as though we are avoiding the consensus call so we can avoid underlining any disagreements, but then just calling items in the report “preliminary recommendations “anyway. What is the distinction here? Is it really correct to say the Initial Report contains “preliminary recommendations”? Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax suAAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D3CFD7.62822150] 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, April 09, 2018 7:43 AM To: Jim Prendergast; Steve Chan; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 9 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Jim. We will address this as one of the first items on the call today. 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: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 10:39 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 9 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC Jeff – I’m not sure I ever saw a response from the leadership regarding some of the issues raised regarding whether this is in fact an initial report or discussion draft. For background, I pasted the email immediately below this message It came out during a time when many, including myself, were on holiday so easily missed. I do think addressing these point in Greg’s email would be beneficial. Could we put that under AOB? Thanks Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202 285 3699 @jimpren Message From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 12:33 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; cw@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org>; Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>; Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com<mailto:javrua@gmail.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Working Group Status and Next Steps I would like to raise a potential concern regarding the preliminary report/final report plan for this WG. Unlike most preliminary reports, this one will have a great many open issues and undecided options. As a result, the first time that the community will see the draft recommendations of the WG will be the final report, a role usually played by the preliminary report. That leaves us no room for error or uncertainty in the final report -- we can't bring it out for comment with significant open issues, if this is really intended to be the final report. That will result in a heavy lift to get this into "final" form straight from a fairly unsettled question-filled preliminary report. And what if the comments result in significant changes in the final report -- what happens? Do we have a supplemental final report (not really contemplated by the Charter)? An alternative approach could be to put this report out as a "discussion draft," intended to spur discussion, and then follow that with the preliminary report with our "beta version" and then the final report. There is precedent for working groups making requests to the community for input or comments or information during the pendency of their work. This would allow the preliminary report to play its usual role. Of course, this could raise timing issues. On the other hand, the cynic in me says that this plan to put out an undercooked preliminary report is intended to put timing ahead of fidelity to the PDP process. I'm not advocating form for the sake of form. Rather I think there are good reasons why the preliminary report is intended to be almost-ready-for-prime-time report, and not a sandbox/workshop/open kitchen for the community to join our "fun" and deliberations. (Maybe it's the "home version" of the Working Group....) Failing that, I think we have to brace ourselves for the possibility that we could need a supplemental final draft. I suppose the advantage of that is that we look like we're on schedule for the next year or so.... Just my 2 cents, Greg From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 9:04 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 9 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Steve for sending this excerpt around. All, Just a few points before the call in a couple of hours (and we will be going over this again). The main purpose of our review of the Initial Report material is to ensure that the report faithfully represents the discussions that have already taken place within the applicable Work Track (or for the overall issues within the Working Group), the comments we received in CC1 and CC2 as well as the results of the various reviews that have already taken place. We are trying to make sure that we have adequately captured recommendations (where recommendations were made) as well as the deliberations that took place, while at the same time, making sure that our report is not 1000 pages. Therefore, in reviewing the material, now is NOT the time to bring up new issues, new arguments, or to try and convince the group to take a position one way or the other. You will notice that some of the sections (Eg., 1.12.3e) have questions that we will be putting out for public comment. On the call today, and in reviewing the Initial Report in general, we are not going to be discussing answers (or potential answers to those questions). Our goal is to make sure that the questions being asked are clear and are of the type that we want to be asking based on the deliberations of the specific work track that discussed the issue. If there are additional questions we should be asking, now is the time to make sure we get those included. This is going to be a tough exercise for all of us (and I am including myself). Our natural tendency is to try and answer the questions we are presenting, or to try and convince the rest of the group why our position should be adopted. But for now, we are going to do our best to focus the discussions on (i) the format of the report, (ii) ensuring the content reflects accurately the discussions that took place (and comments received) and (iii) making sure that clear, concise and pointed questions are being asked as part of the comment period to elicit the type of responses that will aid our Working Group in making final recommendations in each of these areas. Talk to you all in a few hours. 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 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, April 6, 2018 3:20 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 - 9 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 9 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda Review 2. Roll Call/SOIs 3. Recap of ICANN61 4. Introduction to the Initial Report 5. AOB For item 4 of the agenda, we will be reviewing one section of the draft Initial Report. Attached, please find an extract of the section on Post-Delegation, which includes three topics. 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.
Hi all, I have installed the Webex App on my smartphone; but it requests a URL with the syntax of company.webex.com/meet/username (which seem to be not be available) A workaround seems to be to have the Webex App installed, and then visiting the URL <https://mytrials.webex.com/mytrials/onstage/g.php?MTID=e54fc5790491bbc63d392...> https://mytrials.webex.com/mytrials/onstage/g.php?MTID=e54fc5790491bbc63d392... in a browser (which is rather lengthy) – which then calls the App – and that magically solves the problem! App asks for a thousand permissions – be careful! Just in case someone wanted to use the WebEx App on a phone :D Alexander
participants (6)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Alexander Schubert -
Jeff Neuman -
Jim Prendergast -
Kris Seeburn -
Steve Chan