Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Subsequent Procedures Working Group - Name Collisions covered in SubGroup B today
On 5 Mar 2019, at 17:17, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Thanks Rubens. I think the Initial Report and some of the public comment conflicts with the SAC 90 recommendations adopted by the Board and that is why I am raising this for discussion with the full WG. You refer to “consideration” of SAC 90. Are you saying that as long as the WG has “considered” SAC 90 (and perhaps rejected it if not consistent with the policy development process of the WG), then that is all we need to do?
Board can't order GNSO anything, and GNSO can't order Board anything. Note that even the SAC 90 scorecard says "ask", not "order", "mandate", "demand" or anything like that. The bylaws stipulate what every group can do, what procedures they must follow etc.
When a recommendation is adopted by the Board, what is the obligation of the WG to conform its own recommendations to recommendations already adopted by the Board? (We may have similar questions in relation to the Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCTRT) recommendations, if these are adopted by the Board.)
If you look at overall registry of advices from SOs and ACs, you will see that Board "adopts" a lot of those and then implement them in a manner that - in my reading - is actually rejecting instead of adopting. So documents that say "Board adopted this advice" actually bring little value in determining what is being ruled by the Board. The actual implementation of those is much more informative. Board works in mysterious ways...
CCTRT Final Report is here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-rt-final-08sep18-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-rt-final-08sep18-en.pdf>
I realize that the Co-leaders could take the approach that the Sub Pro WG is not bound by the Board’s adoption of recommendations and is only bound to consider these items and make whatever recommendations it deems appropriate. Unfortunately, that approach can result in a bottleneck at the Board level since the Board is often dealing with conflicting opinions.
I don't know if they think they are bound or not, but they are actually not. And in this case there is not even something tangible to be bound to, since there was no actual implementation of those recommendations. But, since no GNSO policy comes into effect without Board ratification, I'm sure that if we got this wrong, they will tell us in due time. It should be remembered from the history of name collisions that Board actually went to a different path from SSAC advices a good number of times in this topic, including the choice of the controlled interruption signal where Board preferred the ICANN Org suggested local network value (127.0.53.53) and SSAC advised an actually addressable system that would collect information. So even if this actually deviates from SSAC advice, which I'm not sure I agree, it wouldn't be unprecedented to follow a different path. Rubens
Anne
From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>] Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 12:20 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Subsequent Procedures Working Group - Name Collisions covered in SubGroup B today Importance: High
Anne,
The completion of this work will exactly be publishing the PDP WG Final Report and GNSO Council adopting it, so it seems we are on track, as long as the final report doesn't remove the SAC 90 consideration.
Rubens
On 5 Mar 2019, at 15:49, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote:
Please see below.
Hi all – Regarding Name Collisions, when we get to the full WG consideration, we will need to refer to the fact that the Board gave the WG specific directions regarding the recommendations that it adopted pursuant to SSAC Advice. These appear below – excerpted from the Board’s Scorecard. Recommendation 4 is the item that Jeff said he thought was not in SAC 90: “The SSAC recommends that ICANN complete this work before making any decision to add new TLD names to the global DNS.” The work to be completed it described in SAC 90 Recommendations 1 through 3 as shown below with the corresponding Board adoption shown in the far right column. Thanks, Anne
<image001.png>
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
From: Ntfy-GNSO-NewGTLD-WG-SGB [mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Michelle DeSmyter Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 9:52 AM To: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb@icann.org <mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Ntfy-GNSO-NewGTLD-WG-SGB] ***CALL IN 10 MINUTES*** Meeting invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP - Sub Group B call / Tuesday, 05 March 2019 at 17:00 UTC
[EXTERNAL] Dear all, <>
The details are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP - Sub Group B call on Tuesday, 05 March 2019 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. 09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 18:00 Paris CET, 22:00 Karachi PKT, (Wednesday) 02:00 Tokyo JST, (Wednesday) 04:00 Melbourne AEDT For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y4o7z723 [tinyurl.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_y4o7z723&d=...>
Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/WIs2Bg <https://community.icann.org/x/WIs2Bg> Please join the meeting room here: https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/ <https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/> If you’re having trouble joining, please check your plug ins: http://tinyurl.com/icannactest [tinyurl.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_icannactest&...> Please allow yourself additional time before start of meeting to log into Adobe Connect Please log in with First and Last Name when joining the AC room. Instructions explaining how to connect the audio in the Adobe Connect room are attached. A calendar invitation has equally been sent and an ical (if your inbox doesn’t receive direct calendar invitations) is available here as attachment for you to download to your calendar. If you require a dial-out or to send apologies (do not send to full sub team) please send an email request with your preferred contact number to gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>
Conference Bridge: Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 and Toll 213 233 3193
Other telephone numbers found here: http://www.adigo.com/icann [adigo.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adigo.com_icann&d=Dw...>
Enter passcode (Conference ID) on telephone: 7349 Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Julie
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
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.
Jeff and Cheryl, is it your understanding, as per Rubens’ note below, that the ICANN Board has actually NOT adopted the SAC 90 Recommendations that appear in the Board Scorecard below? (Recommendation 2 calls for an in-depth study of name collisions and Recommendation 4 says that this work should be completed prior to adding TLD names to the global DNS.) Could staff please send the letter from the Board transmitting these recommendations to Sub Pro to the list again so we can clarify? [cid:image001.png@01D4D359.585D8120] Thanks, Anne From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br] Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 1:37 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Subsequent Procedures Working Group - Name Collisions covered in SubGroup B today On 5 Mar 2019, at 17:17, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Thanks Rubens. I think the Initial Report and some of the public comment conflicts with the SAC 90 recommendations adopted by the Board and that is why I am raising this for discussion with the full WG. You refer to “consideration” of SAC 90. Are you saying that as long as the WG has “considered” SAC 90 (and perhaps rejected it if not consistent with the policy development process of the WG), then that is all we need to do? Board can't order GNSO anything, and GNSO can't order Board anything. Note that even the SAC 90 scorecard says "ask", not "order", "mandate", "demand" or anything like that. The bylaws stipulate what every group can do, what procedures they must follow etc. When a recommendation is adopted by the Board, what is the obligation of the WG to conform its own recommendations to recommendations already adopted by the Board? (We may have similar questions in relation to the Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCTRT) recommendations, if these are adopted by the Board.) If you look at overall registry of advices from SOs and ACs, you will see that Board "adopts" a lot of those and then implement them in a manner that - in my reading - is actually rejecting instead of adopting. So documents that say "Board adopted this advice" actually bring little value in determining what is being ruled by the Board. The actual implementation of those is much more informative. Board works in mysterious ways... CCTRT Final Report is here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-rt-final-08sep18-en.pdf I realize that the Co-leaders could take the approach that the Sub Pro WG is not bound by the Board’s adoption of recommendations and is only bound to consider these items and make whatever recommendations it deems appropriate. Unfortunately, that approach can result in a bottleneck at the Board level since the Board is often dealing with conflicting opinions. I don't know if they think they are bound or not, but they are actually not. And in this case there is not even something tangible to be bound to, since there was no actual implementation of those recommendations. But, since no GNSO policy comes into effect without Board ratification, I'm sure that if we got this wrong, they will tell us in due time. It should be remembered from the history of name collisions that Board actually went to a different path from SSAC advices a good number of times in this topic, including the choice of the controlled interruption signal where Board preferred the ICANN Org suggested local network value (127.0.53.53) and SSAC advised an actually addressable system that would collect information. So even if this actually deviates from SSAC advice, which I'm not sure I agree, it wouldn't be unprecedented to follow a different path. Rubens Anne [cid:image001.png@01D4D355.A3A9C480] From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br] Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 12:20 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Subsequent Procedures Working Group - Name Collisions covered in SubGroup B today Importance: High Anne, The completion of this work will exactly be publishing the PDP WG Final Report and GNSO Council adopting it, so it seems we are on track, as long as the final report doesn't remove the SAC 90 consideration. Rubens On 5 Mar 2019, at 15:49, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Please see below. Hi all – Regarding Name Collisions, when we get to the full WG consideration, we will need to refer to the fact that the Board gave the WG specific directions regarding the recommendations that it adopted pursuant to SSAC Advice. These appear below – excerpted from the Board’s Scorecard. Recommendation 4 is the item that Jeff said he thought was not in SAC 90: “The SSAC recommends that ICANN complete this work before making any decision to add new TLD names to the global DNS.” The work to be completed it described in SAC 90 Recommendations 1 through 3 as shown below with the corresponding Board adoption shown in the far right column. Thanks, Anne <image001.png> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Ntfy-GNSO-NewGTLD-WG-SGB [mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michelle DeSmyter Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 9:52 AM To: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb@icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Ntfy-GNSO-NewGTLD-WG-SGB] ***CALL IN 10 MINUTES*** Meeting invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP - Sub Group B call / Tuesday, 05 March 2019 at 17:00 UTC [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear all, The details are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP - Sub Group B call on Tuesday, 05 March 2019 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. 09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 18:00 Paris CET, 22:00 Karachi PKT, (Wednesday) 02:00 Tokyo JST, (Wednesday) 04:00 Melbourne AEDT For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y4o7z723 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_y4o7z723&d=...> Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/WIs2Bg Please join the meeting room here: https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/ If you’re having trouble joining, please check your plug ins: http://tinyurl.com/icannactest [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_icannactest&...> * Please allow yourself additional time before start of meeting to log into Adobe Connect * Please log in with First and Last Name when joining the AC room. Instructions explaining how to connect the audio in the Adobe Connect room are attached. A calendar invitation has equally been sent and an ical (if your inbox doesn’t receive direct calendar invitations) is available here as attachment for you to download to your calendar. If you require a dial-out or to send apologies (do not send to full sub team) please send an email request with your preferred contact number to gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Conference Bridge: Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 and Toll 213 233 3193 Other telephone numbers found here: http://www.adigo.com/icann [adigo.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adigo.com_icann&d=Dw...> Enter passcode (Conference ID) on telephone: 7349 Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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.
participants (2)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Rubens Kuhl