Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018
Dear Working Group members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today, 14 June 2018. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-06-14+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Please also see the attached referenced documents. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items: 1.8.1: Objections, Section e: Action Item 1: Re: "A transparent process for ensuring that panelists, evaluators, and independent objectors are free from conflicts of interest must be developed." Add a question in Section e: concerning who would administer the conflict of interest process; cite current mechanism and ask if others are necessary. Action Item 2: Legal Rights Objections: provide explanation in the question concerning the use of the term "infringement". Action Item 3: Re: delay in the process (question) of course an objection is supposed to delay the process -- the question needs to be reformulated. Action Item 4: Re: string confusion resulting from exact translations of existing TLDs -- concerns received from the community that were shared with the Work Track that said that exact translations of existing strings in highly regulated sectors that don't apply the same safeguards -- need to add a question for feedback. Action Item 5: Clarify the question on Legal Rights Objections and the use of the term “infringement”. Action Item 6: General Questions -- 3rd bullet – Use more neutral language for the question regarding limits on funding for objections filed by ALAC? Change the question to: "If this does continue, should limits be placed on such funding? If yes, what limits should be applied?" Working Group Actions: Action Item 7: WG members should review Section 1.8.2 Accountability Mechanisms, and Section 1.9.1 String Contention Resolution in preparation for the meeting on Monday, 18 June. Notes: 1. Agenda Review 2. Roll Call/SOIs: No Updates 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) in advance of the meeting. a. Review of Section 1.8 (Objections; Accountability Mechanisms) 1.8.1 Objections -- If they are purely questions of clarification, not what we discussed, etc., then that is appropriate. We are trying to avoid opinion, new information, etc. as they belong in public comments. -- We are taking note of those types of comments and record them to make sure that none of those inputs are lost. -- Co-Leaders need to do more about the coordination of issues and discussions between the different work tracks -- there are some inconsistencies. -- There is a general issue between Work Track 5 and the extensive discussion of objection procedures. We need a caveat or qualification up front in this document that the objection procedures do not necessarily apply to all categories of applications subject to the work of Work Track 5. -- We will make it clear that the material we are putting out relates to everything except for geographic names at the top level. -- The work being done in the Work Tracks and the work being done in the WG: the Initial Report seems to only reflect work being done in the Work Track. Need to be very clear on the hierarchy and methodology. -- Page 7-8: Don't think it is possible to make objectors worldwide to bear the costs of their objection. Section c: Recommendations -- Question: 1st bullet -- did the WT consider who would administer the process? Answer: Discussed that whoever is appointing the panels should take care to make those assurances (ICANN Org through RFPs, for example) but we did not go into whose responsibility it was. So that the interests of the evaluators are stated up front. ACTION: Add for feedback. But perhaps point to existing mechanisms and ask if others are needed. Section d: Other items that were discussed, but didn't rise to the level of recommendations, so the WG is seeking feedback on them. Section e: Questions the PDP WG is seeking feedback on: -- Re: delay in the process (question) of course an objection is supposed to delay the process -- the question needs to be reformulated. -- Re: string confusion resulting from exact translations of existing TLDs -- concerns received from the community that were shared with the Work Track that said that exact translations of existing strings in highly regulated sectors that don't apply the same safeguards -- need to add a question for feedback. -- In order to be clear with this question, needs to be changed to strike infringement and say unfair advantage -- the rules state three grounds. -- From AGB: "“Existing Legal Rights Objection” refers to the objection that the string comprising the potential new gTLD infringes the existing legal rights of that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law." AGB used infringement wrongly, but that's what it was. -- General Questions -- 3rd bullet -- can we use more neutral language for the question regarding limits on funding for objections filed by ALAC? something along the lines of "If this does continue, should limits be placed on such funding? If yes, what limits should be applied?" Section g: dependencies: -- Re: Independent Objector: On page 18 there is a question about whether there are other activities that would be a dependency, and mention the accountability work with respect to human rights. There was a section in the Accountability Work Stream 2 Sub Team on human rights that could have an impact on this section. The independent review process went into great detail, but the IO as relating to new gTLDs didn't have particular recommendations. There were things like the diversity of a panel, transparency, conflicts of interest -- so hopefully our recommendations will be founded on those models. None of the recommendations are finalized. 4. Next Steps: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m5W9S7Eigjs0OER6wv2skbG-eaObojBWMxvK4i1r... Friday, 15 June 2018 -- Initial Report -- Share other standard sections of the Initial Report, with placeholder for red-lined revisions -- Share revised sections (with possible exception of sections just reviewed) Monday, 18 June 2018 -- Full WG Meeting: Discuss full Initial Report, Discuss red-lined revisions Wednesday, 20 June 2018: Share full Initial Report (on Wiki only) Tuesday, 3 July 2018 -- Officially publish Initial Report for Public Comment --- Send correspondence to Board, inviting them to submit public comment -- Send email to ICANN org, inviting them to submit public comment -- Start a 60-day public comment period, through 05 September. Discussion: -- The level of detail tries to show what we can accomplish by what time. -- Try to develop a work plan of how we get to a final report, meeting-by-meeting with topics. -- At ICANN62: talk about how we organize this WG; put forward some proposals and get insight from the WG members and community. -- Develop a more detailed work plan to provide clarity. -- Question as to whether we need the CCT-RT Report and the WT5 report before the PDP can put forward a "final" document for public comment? We will consider this question.
Jeff and Cheryl, The Work Plan says we will share the full Initial Report on the Wiki on June 20 – prior to the ICANN meeting. I don’t see how we can say that this Working Group will have arrived at an agreed Initial Report by that time. Why are we sharing the report on the Wiki long before it is put out for public comment on July 3? Shouldn’t the WG be finalizing the version of the Initial Report that it wants to approve for public comment in the course of meetings at ICANN62? Maybe I don’t understand what is meant by publication of the report on the Wiki. That seems premature. I don’t think we will have agreement. 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@01D403F2.DD1AD840] 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 Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 3:05 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018 Dear Working Group members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today, 14 June 2018. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-06-14+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Please also see the attached referenced documents. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items: 1.8.1: Objections, Section e: Action Item 1: Re: "A transparent process for ensuring that panelists, evaluators, and independent objectors are free from conflicts of interest must be developed." Add a question in Section e: concerning who would administer the conflict of interest process; cite current mechanism and ask if others are necessary. Action Item 2: Legal Rights Objections: provide explanation in the question concerning the use of the term "infringement". Action Item 3: Re: delay in the process (question) of course an objection is supposed to delay the process -- the question needs to be reformulated. Action Item 4: Re: string confusion resulting from exact translations of existing TLDs -- concerns received from the community that were shared with the Work Track that said that exact translations of existing strings in highly regulated sectors that don't apply the same safeguards -- need to add a question for feedback. Action Item 5: Clarify the question on Legal Rights Objections and the use of the term “infringement”. Action Item 6: General Questions -- 3rd bullet – Use more neutral language for the question regarding limits on funding for objections filed by ALAC? Change the question to: "If this does continue, should limits be placed on such funding? If yes, what limits should be applied?" Working Group Actions: Action Item 7: WG members should review Section 1.8.2 Accountability Mechanisms, and Section 1.9.1 String Contention Resolution in preparation for the meeting on Monday, 18 June. Notes: 1. Agenda Review 2. Roll Call/SOIs: No Updates 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. a. Review of Section 1.8 (Objections; Accountability Mechanisms) 1.8.1 Objections -- If they are purely questions of clarification, not what we discussed, etc., then that is appropriate. We are trying to avoid opinion, new information, etc. as they belong in public comments. -- We are taking note of those types of comments and record them to make sure that none of those inputs are lost. -- Co-Leaders need to do more about the coordination of issues and discussions between the different work tracks -- there are some inconsistencies. -- There is a general issue between Work Track 5 and the extensive discussion of objection procedures. We need a caveat or qualification up front in this document that the objection procedures do not necessarily apply to all categories of applications subject to the work of Work Track 5. -- We will make it clear that the material we are putting out relates to everything except for geographic names at the top level. -- The work being done in the Work Tracks and the work being done in the WG: the Initial Report seems to only reflect work being done in the Work Track. Need to be very clear on the hierarchy and methodology. -- Page 7-8: Don't think it is possible to make objectors worldwide to bear the costs of their objection. Section c: Recommendations -- Question: 1st bullet -- did the WT consider who would administer the process? Answer: Discussed that whoever is appointing the panels should take care to make those assurances (ICANN Org through RFPs, for example) but we did not go into whose responsibility it was. So that the interests of the evaluators are stated up front. ACTION: Add for feedback. But perhaps point to existing mechanisms and ask if others are needed. Section d: Other items that were discussed, but didn't rise to the level of recommendations, so the WG is seeking feedback on them. Section e: Questions the PDP WG is seeking feedback on: -- Re: delay in the process (question) of course an objection is supposed to delay the process -- the question needs to be reformulated. -- Re: string confusion resulting from exact translations of existing TLDs -- concerns received from the community that were shared with the Work Track that said that exact translations of existing strings in highly regulated sectors that don't apply the same safeguards -- need to add a question for feedback. -- In order to be clear with this question, needs to be changed to strike infringement and say unfair advantage -- the rules state three grounds. -- From AGB: "“Existing Legal Rights Objection” refers to the objection that the string comprising the potential new gTLD infringes the existing legal rights of that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law." AGB used infringement wrongly, but that's what it was. -- General Questions -- 3rd bullet -- can we use more neutral language for the question regarding limits on funding for objections filed by ALAC? something along the lines of "If this does continue, should limits be placed on such funding? If yes, what limits should be applied?" Section g: dependencies: -- Re: Independent Objector: On page 18 there is a question about whether there are other activities that would be a dependency, and mention the accountability work with respect to human rights. There was a section in the Accountability Work Stream 2 Sub Team on human rights that could have an impact on this section. The independent review process went into great detail, but the IO as relating to new gTLDs didn't have particular recommendations. There were things like the diversity of a panel, transparency, conflicts of interest -- so hopefully our recommendations will be founded on those models. None of the recommendations are finalized. 4. Next Steps: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m5W9S7Eigjs0OER6wv2skbG-eaObojBWMxvK4i1r... Friday, 15 June 2018 -- Initial Report -- Share other standard sections of the Initial Report, with placeholder for red-lined revisions -- Share revised sections (with possible exception of sections just reviewed) Monday, 18 June 2018 -- Full WG Meeting: Discuss full Initial Report, Discuss red-lined revisions Wednesday, 20 June 2018: Share full Initial Report (on Wiki only) Tuesday, 3 July 2018 -- Officially publish Initial Report for Public Comment --- Send correspondence to Board, inviting them to submit public comment -- Send email to ICANN org, inviting them to submit public comment -- Start a 60-day public comment period, through 05 September. Discussion: -- The level of detail tries to show what we can accomplish by what time. -- Try to develop a work plan of how we get to a final report, meeting-by-meeting with topics. -- At ICANN62: talk about how we organize this WG; put forward some proposals and get insight from the WG members and community. -- Develop a more detailed work plan to provide clarity. -- Question as to whether we need the CCT-RT Report and the WT5 report before the PDP can put forward a "final" document for public comment? We will consider this question. ________________________________ 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 (2)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Julie Hedlund