Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018
Guess Anne has a point. We should post for the public comment at same time, with more discussions during Panama. Best regards, Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 19:18 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018 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:image001.png@01D4049D.7BAFC380] 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.
If we are inviting input from the rest of the community that is NOT in the WG during the Sub Pro Meetings in Panama, then I get the reason for posting on the Wiki. Is that what is happening? Or are the Sub Pro sessions in Panama meant for continued WG deliberations without soliciting community input at that time? Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D404A4.E887F980] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Vanda Scartezini [mailto:vanda@scartezini.org] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 7:39 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018 Guess Anne has a point. We should post for the public comment at same time, with more discussions during Panama. Best regards, Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 19:18 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018 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:image004.png@01D404A4.E84C7720] 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<mailto: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. ________________________________ 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.
All, As discussed on several of the calls, the plan is to have the document posted prior to the ICANN Meeting in Panama. Because of the rules about when things can go “out for comment” and because it would look horrible to put something formally out for comment just a couple of days before the meeting begins, the formal comment period cannot begin until after the ICANN meeting. There is no intent for us to continue discussions on the Initial Report or to solicit comments on the Initial Report in Panama. In essence, the report is locked down. We have lots of other work to do in the Panama sessions as has been discussed on the calls. They do not involve seeking further input on the Initial Report. I think it may be helpful to notify your community when we do post the Initial report that it has been posted and that starting on July 2nd or 3rd comments will begin to be accepted. This way they not only have the 60 day or so public comment period, but they also have the extra week and a half or so to work on the comments. 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 Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 3:32 PM To: 'Vanda Scartezini' <vanda@scartezini.org>; 'Julie Hedlund' <julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018 If we are inviting input from the rest of the community that is NOT in the WG during the Sub Pro Meetings in Panama, then I get the reason for posting on the Wiki. Is that what is happening? Or are the Sub Pro sessions in Panama meant for continued WG deliberations without soliciting community input at that time? Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D404CB.8FBE69C0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Vanda Scartezini [mailto:vanda@scartezini.org] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 7:39 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018 Guess Anne has a point. We should post for the public comment at same time, with more discussions during Panama. Best regards, Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 19:18 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018 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:image002.png@01D404CB.8FBE69C0] 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<mailto: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. ________________________________ 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 Jeff. Why are we “locking down” the report before the meeting in Panama? It seems odd to foreclose discussion on finalizing the draft when the WG will have SO LITTLE TIME to review revisions (and the introductory statement requested some time ago) before you post to the Wiki on June 20 as a “locked down” version. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D404BA.5DEE1820] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 2:09 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Vanda Scartezini'; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018 All, As discussed on several of the calls, the plan is to have the document posted prior to the ICANN Meeting in Panama. Because of the rules about when things can go “out for comment” and because it would look horrible to put something formally out for comment just a couple of days before the meeting begins, the formal comment period cannot begin until after the ICANN meeting. There is no intent for us to continue discussions on the Initial Report or to solicit comments on the Initial Report in Panama. In essence, the report is locked down. We have lots of other work to do in the Panama sessions as has been discussed on the calls. They do not involve seeking further input on the Initial Report. I think it may be helpful to notify your community when we do post the Initial report that it has been posted and that starting on July 2nd or 3rd comments will begin to be accepted. This way they not only have the 60 day or so public comment period, but they also have the extra week and a half or so to work on the comments. 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 Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 3:32 PM To: 'Vanda Scartezini' <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>>; 'Julie Hedlund' <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018 If we are inviting input from the rest of the community that is NOT in the WG during the Sub Pro Meetings in Panama, then I get the reason for posting on the Wiki. Is that what is happening? Or are the Sub Pro sessions in Panama meant for continued WG deliberations without soliciting community input at that time? Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image005.png@01D404BA.5DA17EC0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Vanda Scartezini [mailto:vanda@scartezini.org] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 7:39 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018 Guess Anne has a point. We should post for the public comment at same time, with more discussions during Panama. Best regards, Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 19:18 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018 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:image006.png@01D404BA.5DA17EC0] 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<mailto: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. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
I have to agree with Anne here. It appears that this is being locked down almost "arbitrarily". Optically, this does not seem like the right thing to do. I almost feels like the report is being pushed thru with this timeline out of some sort of "desperation". This has to be viewed by the community as being a truly "deliberative" product and we seriously risk that perception. This is not the right decision to take at this point.. Ken Stubbs On 6/15/18 18:06, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Thanks Jeff. Why are we “locking down” the report before the meeting in Panama? It seems odd to foreclose discussion on finalizing the draft when the WG will have SO LITTLE TIME to review revisions (and the introductory statement requested some time ago) before you post to the Wiki on June 20 as a “locked down” version.
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
*From:*Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] *Sent:* Friday, June 15, 2018 2:09 PM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Vanda Scartezini'; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018
All,
As discussed on several of the calls, the plan is to have the document posted prior to the ICANN Meeting in Panama. Because of the rules about when things can go “out for comment” and because it would look horrible to put something formally out for comment just a couple of days before the meeting begins, the formal comment period cannot begin until after the ICANN meeting. There is no intent for us to continue discussions on the Initial Report or to solicit comments on the Initial Report in Panama. In essence, the report is locked down. We have lots of other work to do in the Panama sessions as has been discussed on the calls. They do not involve seeking further input on the Initial Report.
I think it may be helpful to notify your community when we do post the Initial report that it has been posted and that starting on July 2^nd or 3^rd comments will begin to be accepted. This way they not only have the 60 day or so public comment period, but they also have the extra week and a half or so to work on the comments.
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 *Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Sent:* Friday, June 15, 2018 3:32 PM *To:* 'Vanda Scartezini' <vanda@scartezini.org <mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>>; 'Julie Hedlund' <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018
If we are inviting input from the rest of the community that is NOT in the WG during the Sub Pro Meetings in Panama, then I get the reason for posting on the Wiki. Is that what is happening? Or are the Sub Pro sessions in Panama meant for continued WG deliberations without soliciting community input at that time?
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
*From:*Vanda Scartezini [mailto:vanda@scartezini.org] *Sent:* Friday, June 15, 2018 7:39 AM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018
Guess Anne has a point. We should post for the public comment at same time, with more discussions during Panama.
Best regards,
*/Vanda Scartezini/*
*/Polo Consultores Associados/*
*/Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004/*
*/01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil/*
*/Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253/*
*/Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 /*
*/Sorry for any typos. /*
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> *Date: *Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 19:18 *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018
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>
_____________________________
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 <mailto: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, 14June 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Dear Ken Stubbs: Thankyou. I think you and Anne are correct, if for other reasons. 1. there are several aspects of the draft report which - taken literally - would seriously prejudice the outcome of the WT5 work on Geographical Names. I would not support taking those matters off the WT5 agenda simply because other WTs have been closed down, prematurely, by 'finalising' their draft reports. 2. WT5 started late (¿Why?). So be it, but then the PDP has to mark time while the Geo-Names issues are resolved, including aspects that are being treated, to date, by other WTs. 3. From my point of view I could not support going out for 'public comment' on the basis of a partial draft that does not reflect a consensus of the Work Tracks. I would be glad if the Co-Chairs and the Co-Leads would take this into consideration. If we force the pace now, we will just meet brick walls sooner than necessary. Best regards Christopher Wilkinson
El 16 de junio de 2018 a las 4:03 Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@afilias.info> escribió:
I have to agree with Anne here.
It appears that this is being locked down almost "arbitrarily".
Optically, this does not seem like the right thing to do. I almost feels like the report is being pushed thru with this timeline out of some sort of "desperation".
This has to be viewed by the community as being a truly "deliberative" product and we seriously risk that perception.
This is not the right decision to take at this point..
Ken Stubbs
On 6/15/18 18:06, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
> >
Thanks Jeff. Why are we “locking down” the report before the meeting in Panama? It seems odd to foreclose discussion on finalizing the draft when the WG will have SO LITTLE TIME to review revisions (and the introductory statement requested some time ago) before you post to the Wiki on June 20 as a “locked down” version.
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman@lrrc.com mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com http://lrrc.com/
From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 2:09 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Vanda Scartezini'; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018
All,
As discussed on several of the calls, the plan is to have the document posted prior to the ICANN Meeting in Panama. Because of the rules about when things can go “out for comment” and because it would look horrible to put something formally out for comment just a couple of days before the meeting begins, the formal comment period cannot begin until after the ICANN meeting. There is no intent for us to continue discussions on the Initial Report or to solicit comments on the Initial Report in Panama. In essence, the report is locked down. We have lots of other work to do in the Panama sessions as has been discussed on the calls. They do not involve seeking further input on the Initial Report.
I think it may be helpful to notify your community when we do post the Initial report that it has been posted and that starting on July 2nd or 3rd comments will begin to be accepted. This way they not only have the 60 day or so public comment period, but they also have the extra week and a half or so to work on the comments.
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 Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 3:32 PM To: 'Vanda Scartezini' <vanda@scartezini.org mailto:vanda@scartezini.org >; 'Julie Hedlund' <julie.hedlund@icann.org mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018
If we are inviting input from the rest of the community that is NOT in the WG during the Sub Pro Meetings in Panama, then I get the reason for posting on the Wiki. Is that what is happening? Or are the Sub Pro sessions in Panama meant for continued WG deliberations without soliciting community input at that time?
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman@lrrc.com mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com http://lrrc.com/
From: Vanda Scartezini [mailto:vanda@scartezini.org] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 7:39 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018
Guess Anne has a point. We should post for the public comment at same time, with more discussions during Panama.
Best regards,
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
Sorry for any typos.
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org > on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com > Date: Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 19:18 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018
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
_____________________________
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 mailto: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... 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... 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.
---------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
---------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
On 16 Jun 2018, at 16:48, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Dear Ken Stubbs:
Thankyou. I think you and Anne are correct, if for other reasons.
1. there are several aspects of the draft report which - taken literally - would seriously prejudice the outcome of the WT5 work on Geographical Names. I would not support taking those matters off the WT5 agenda simply because other WTs have been closed down, prematurely, by 'finalising' their draft reports.
As pointed out by many during the call, this is simply not true. WT5 has full discretion to determine whether something particular to Geo Names needs different handling.
2. WT5 started late (¿Why?). So be it, but then the PDP has to mark time while the Geo-Names issues are resolved, including aspects that are being treated, to date, by other WTs.
Also not true, since there is much more to discuss than Geo-Names specifically.
3. From my point of view I could not support going out for 'public comment' on the basis of a partial draft that does not reflect a consensus of the Work Tracks.
This was already answered a number of times by co-chairs. Rubens
Dear Rubens: That is not at all how I see it today. I shall speak to the issue on this afternoon's call. To take one current example, we have Work Track 3, apparently intent on imposing an Objection Based system on the whole of the PDP (Section 1.8.1) whereas informed opinion in WT5 has clearly stated that would not work and supports a prior-authorisation system- I can think of several other inconsistencies that I have noticed among the current drafts of the various sections of the draft Report Thankyou for your attention Chrisotopher
El 17 de junio de 2018 a las 23:23 Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> escribió:
> > On 16 Jun 2018, at 16:48, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu > wrote:
Dear Ken Stubbs:
Thankyou. I think you and Anne are correct, if for other reasons.
1. there are several aspects of the draft report which - taken literally - would seriously prejudice the outcome of the WT5 work on Geographical Names. I would not support taking those matters off the WT5 agenda simply because other WTs have been closed down, prematurely, by 'finalising' their draft reports.
>
As pointed out by many during the call, this is simply not true. WT5 has full discretion to determine whether something particular to Geo Names needs different handling.
> >
2. WT5 started late (¿Why?). So be it, but then the PDP has to mark time while the Geo-Names issues are resolved, including aspects that are being treated, to date, by other WTs.
>
Also not true, since there is much more to discuss than Geo-Names specifically.
> >
3. From my point of view I could not support going out for 'public comment' on the basis of a partial draft that does not reflect a consensus of the Work Tracks.
>
This was already answered a number of times by co-chairs.
Rubens
Em 18 de jun de 2018, à(s) 09:09:000, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> escreveu:
Dear Rubens:
That is not at all how I see it today. I shall speak to the issue on this afternoon's call.
To take one current example, we have Work Track 3, apparently intent on imposing an Objection Based system on the whole of the PDP (Section 1.8.1)
CW, You are reading too much into the report. WT3 has never discussed imposing Objection System to eval Geo Names, but assuming they did - which they didn't, but just for argument's sake - WT5 report comes later and could override it.
whereas informed opinion in WT5 has clearly stated that would not work and supports a prior-authorisation system-
WT5 is a work track, so please don't take your individual positions as WT5... that said, a prior-authorization system was exactly how the 2012 round was implemented, so it already starts as the incumbent way of doing it. WT5 might change or not at their discretion, but they would need consensus (meaning: rough consensus) to do so.
I can think of several other inconsistencies that I have noticed among the current drafts of the various sections of the draft Report
If they are among WTs 1 to 4, please raise them so they can be addressed either now or in the future. Even if we don't resolve the inconsistencies as that would be substantive, we could list them in the initial report, in order to have further community input on how to reconcile them. Rubens
Thankyou for your attention
Chrisotopher
El 17 de junio de 2018 a las 23:23 Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> escribió:
On 16 Jun 2018, at 16:48, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:
Dear Ken Stubbs:
Thankyou. I think you and Anne are correct, if for other reasons.
1. there are several aspects of the draft report which - taken literally - would seriously prejudice the outcome of the WT5 work on Geographical Names. I would not support taking those matters off the WT5 agenda simply because other WTs have been closed down, prematurely, by 'finalising' their draft reports.
As pointed out by many during the call, this is simply not true. WT5 has full discretion to determine whether something particular to Geo Names needs different handling.
2. WT5 started late (¿Why?). So be it, but then the PDP has to mark time while the Geo-Names issues are resolved, including aspects that are being treated, to date, by other WTs.
Also not true, since there is much more to discuss than Geo-Names specifically.
3. From my point of view I could not support going out for 'public comment' on the basis of a partial draft that does not reflect a consensus of the Work Tracks.
This was already answered a number of times by co-chairs.
Rubens
“, we have Work Track 3, apparently intent on imposing an Objection Based system on the whole of the PDP (Section 1.8.1)“ Christopher – I would ask you to remember that the objection based system is the system which was in place for the 2012 round. Work Track 3 has not created anything new to ”impose upon the whole PDP” as you have implied on multiple occasions. Our mission is to review and revise/refine the existing policy. If WT5 feels that there should be a different approach to GeoNames, they are free to create such new policy carving out GeoNames from the existing policy. There is nothing that WT3 has done which will impair the work of WT 5, though it may be used to inform the work. Thanks, Karen Co-lead WT3 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 8:10 AM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018 EXTERNAL Dear Rubens: That is not at all how I see it today. I shall speak to the issue on this afternoon's call. To take one current example, we have Work Track 3, apparently intent on imposing an Objection Based system on the whole of the PDP (Section 1.8.1) whereas informed opinion in WT5 has clearly stated that would not work and supports a prior-authorisation system- I can think of several other inconsistencies that I have noticed among the current drafts of the various sections of the draft Report Thankyou for your attention Chrisotopher El 17 de junio de 2018 a las 23:23 Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> escribió: On 16 Jun 2018, at 16:48, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Ken Stubbs: Thankyou. I think you and Anne are correct, if for other reasons. 1. there are several aspects of the draft report which - taken literally - would seriously prejudice the outcome of the WT5 work on Geographical Names. I would not support taking those matters off the WT5 agenda simply because other WTs have been closed down, prematurely, by 'finalising' their draft reports. As pointed out by many during the call, this is simply not true. WT5 has full discretion to determine whether something particular to Geo Names needs different handling. 2. WT5 started late (¿Why?). So be it, but then the PDP has to mark time while the Geo-Names issues are resolved, including aspects that are being treated, to date, by other WTs. Also not true, since there is much more to discuss than Geo-Names specifically. 3. From my point of view I could not support going out for 'public comment' on the basis of a partial draft that does not reflect a consensus of the Work Tracks. This was already answered a number of times by co-chairs. Rubens
participants (7)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Jeff Neuman -
Karen Day -
Ken Stubbs -
lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson -
Rubens Kuhl -
Vanda Scartezini