FW: [Ext] Re: Reminder: Deadline today, 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5
Dear all, Please see attached submission from Christopher Wilkinson with input on package 5. Kind regards, Emily El 16 de junio de 2020 a las 11:25 Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> escribió: Dear all, As a reminder, today is the deadline to submit comments on package 5 revisions (details below). Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Date: Saturday, 6 June 2020 at 02:03 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5 Dear all, The leadership team is releasing the fifth set of revised draft recommendations for your review. 1. There are 9 topics in package 5 here, beginning on page 74: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>. Note that the Geographic Names report from Work Track 5 is provided separately, below. · 2.2.7 Metrics and Monitoring (This topic is intended to serve as an aggregation point for the metrics based recommendations from the various topics. Deliberations occurred in the context of the directly related topic.) · 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed 26 Mar<https://community.icann.org/x/ZiOJBw>) · 2.4 Application Change Requests (last discussed 14 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/nC2JBw>) · 2.7.1 Reserved Names (last discussed 23 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/py2JBw>) · 2.8.1 Objections: GAC Early Warning and GAC Advice (last discussed 7 May<https://community.icann.org/x/u4PsBw>) · 2.8.2 Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 20 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/oy2JBw>). Note, an Annex is referenced in this section which will eventually mean the spreadsheet the WG developed here [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...>. · 2.8.2 Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 23 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/py2JBw>) · 2.10.1 Base Registry Agreement (last discussed 9 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/mS2JBw>) · 2.7.1.2 Geographic Names (last discussed by the full WG at ICANN66 in Montreal on 2 Nov 2019<https://community.icann.org/x/Ao7kBg>). The WT5 report is available here<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60490848/Work%20Track%205%2...>, unchanged from when it was delivered to the full WG on 22 October 2019. 1. Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. 1. Because of the size of this particular package, the deadline for comments is Tuesday 16 June at 23:59 UTC 1. Comments will be tracked here: https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw. Best, Steve Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email: steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=o7Auz997kA-HPv9PHJCjFVZw7Pgo8krw4MxfqCwBrIU&e=> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=kWw4fQPNjw2lVKy1UjTxS2F0BmjEAzaDFWNmsYywbmE&e=> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Jeff and Cheryl, Page 79 “Ratinale for Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 5) says the WG has provided a summary of the types of actions or inactions that are inconsistent with the AGB for each type of evaluation and objection decision. Since this is a “can’t live with” deadline, could we please have that Annex xx referred to in that rationale 5? Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 11:04 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: [Ext] Re: Reminder: Deadline today, 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear all, Please see attached submission from Christopher Wilkinson with input on package 5. Kind regards, Emily El 16 de junio de 2020 a las 11:25 Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> escribió: Dear all, As a reminder, today is the deadline to submit comments on package 5 revisions (details below). Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Date: Saturday, 6 June 2020 at 02:03 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5 Dear all, The leadership team is releasing the fifth set of revised draft recommendations for your review. 1. There are 9 topics in package 5 here, beginning on page 74: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>. Note that the Geographic Names report from Work Track 5 is provided separately, below. · 2.2.7 Metrics and Monitoring (This topic is intended to serve as an aggregation point for the metrics based recommendations from the various topics. Deliberations occurred in the context of the directly related topic.) · 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed 26 Mar<https://community.icann.org/x/ZiOJBw>) · 2.4 Application Change Requests (last discussed 14 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/nC2JBw>) · 2.7.1 Reserved Names (last discussed 23 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/py2JBw>) · 2.8.1 Objections: GAC Early Warning and GAC Advice (last discussed 7 May<https://community.icann.org/x/u4PsBw>) · 2.8.2 Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 20 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/oy2JBw>). Note, an Annex is referenced in this section which will eventually mean the spreadsheet the WG developed here [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...>. · 2.8.2 Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 23 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/py2JBw>) · 2.10.1 Base Registry Agreement (last discussed 9 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/mS2JBw>) · 2.7.1.2 Geographic Names (last discussed by the full WG at ICANN66 in Montreal on 2 Nov 2019<https://community.icann.org/x/Ao7kBg>). The WT5 report is available here<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60490848/Work%20Track%205%2...>, unchanged from when it was delivered to the full WG on 22 October 2019. 2. Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. 3. Because of the size of this particular package, the deadline for comments is Tuesday 16 June at 23:59 UTC 4. Comments will be tracked here: https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw. Best, Steve Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email: steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=o7Auz997kA-HPv9PHJCjFVZw7Pgo8krw4MxfqCwBrIU&e=> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=kWw4fQPNjw2lVKy1UjTxS2F0BmjEAzaDFWNmsYywbmE&e=> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...> _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Hi Anne, all, It probably got lost in the wall of text originally shared with you all in sending Package 5, but there was an extra note connected to the bullet. The bullet is reproduced below and you can find a link to the referenced Google sheet: 2.8.2 Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 20 Apr). Note, an Annex is referenced in this section which will eventually mean the spreadsheet the WG developed here [docs.google.com]. Best, Steve From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 at 1:10 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Cc: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: [Ext] Re: Reminder: Deadline today, 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5 Jeff and Cheryl, Page 79 “Ratinale for Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 5) says the WG has provided a summary of the types of actions or inactions that are inconsistent with the AGB for each type of evaluation and objection decision. Since this is a “can’t live with” deadline, could we please have that Annex xx referred to in that rationale 5? Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 11:04 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: [Ext] Re: Reminder: Deadline today, 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5 [EXTERNAL] Dear all, Please see attached submission from Christopher Wilkinson with input on package 5. Kind regards, Emily El 16 de junio de 2020 a las 11:25 Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> escribió: Dear all, As a reminder, today is the deadline to submit comments on package 5 revisions (details below). Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Date: Saturday, 6 June 2020 at 02:03 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5 Dear all, The leadership team is releasing the fifth set of revised draft recommendations for your review. There are 9 topics in package 5 here, beginning on page 74: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu... [docs.google.com]. Note that the Geographic Names report from Work Track 5 is provided separately, below. · 2.2.7 Metrics and Monitoring (This topic is intended to serve as an aggregation point for the metrics based recommendations from the various topics. Deliberations occurred in the context of the directly related topic.) · 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed 26 Mar) · 2.4 Application Change Requests (last discussed 14 Apr) · 2.7.1 Reserved Names (last discussed 23 Apr) · 2.8.1 Objections: GAC Early Warning and GAC Advice (last discussed 7 May) · 2.8.2 Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 20 Apr). Note, an Annex is referenced in this section which will eventually mean the spreadsheet the WG developed here [docs.google.com]. · 2.8.2 Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 23 Apr) · 2.10.1 Base Registry Agreement (last discussed 9 Apr) · 2.7.1.2 Geographic Names (last discussed by the full WG at ICANN66 in Montreal on 2 Nov 2019). The WT5 report is available here, unchanged from when it was delivered to the full WG on 22 October 2019. Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. Because of the size of this particular package, the deadline for comments is Tuesday 16 June at 23:59 UTC Comments will be tracked here: https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw. Best, Steve Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email: steve.chan@icann.org Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. 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.
Thank you Steve – did not notice it before. Anne From: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:32 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: [Ext] Re: Reminder: Deadline today, 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5 Hi Anne, all, It probably got lost in the wall of text originally shared with you all in sending Package 5, but there was an extra note connected to the bullet. The bullet is reproduced below and you can find a link to the referenced Google sheet: 2.8.2 Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 20 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/oy2JBw>). Note, an Annex is referenced in this section which will eventually mean the spreadsheet the WG developed here [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...>. Best, Steve From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 at 1:10 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Cc: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: [Ext] Re: Reminder: Deadline today, 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5 Jeff and Cheryl, Page 79 “Ratinale for Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 5) says the WG has provided a summary of the types of actions or inactions that are inconsistent with the AGB for each type of evaluation and objection decision. Since this is a “can’t live with” deadline, could we please have that Annex xx referred to in that rationale 5? Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 11:04 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: [Ext] Re: Reminder: Deadline today, 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear all, Please see attached submission from Christopher Wilkinson with input on package 5. Kind regards, Emily El 16 de junio de 2020 a las 11:25 Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> escribió: Dear all, As a reminder, today is the deadline to submit comments on package 5 revisions (details below). Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Date: Saturday, 6 June 2020 at 02:03 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5 Dear all, The leadership team is releasing the fifth set of revised draft recommendations for your review. 1. There are 9 topics in package 5 here, beginning on page 74: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>. Note that the Geographic Names report from Work Track 5 is provided separately, below. · 2.2.7 Metrics and Monitoring (This topic is intended to serve as an aggregation point for the metrics based recommendations from the various topics. Deliberations occurred in the context of the directly related topic.) · 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed 26 Mar<https://community.icann.org/x/ZiOJBw>) · 2.4 Application Change Requests (last discussed 14 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/nC2JBw>) · 2.7.1 Reserved Names (last discussed 23 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/py2JBw>) · 2.8.1 Objections: GAC Early Warning and GAC Advice (last discussed 7 May<https://community.icann.org/x/u4PsBw>) · 2.8.2 Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 20 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/oy2JBw>). Note, an Annex is referenced in this section which will eventually mean the spreadsheet the WG developed here [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...>. · 2.8.2 Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 23 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/py2JBw>) · 2.10.1 Base Registry Agreement (last discussed 9 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/mS2JBw>) · 2.7.1.2 Geographic Names (last discussed by the full WG at ICANN66 in Montreal on 2 Nov 2019<https://community.icann.org/x/Ao7kBg>). The WT5 report is available here<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60490848/Work%20Track%205%2...>, unchanged from when it was delivered to the full WG on 22 October 2019. 2. Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. 3. Because of the size of this particular package, the deadline for comments is Tuesday 16 June at 23:59 UTC 4. Comments will be tracked here: https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw. Best, Steve Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email: steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=o7Auz997kA-HPv9PHJCjFVZw7Pgo8krw4MxfqCwBrIU&e=> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=kWw4fQPNjw2lVKy1UjTxS2F0BmjEAzaDFWNmsYywbmE&e=> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...> _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ 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.
So, I would add to "can't live with" that RSTEP is not done by entities, so the arbiter of challenge needs to be changed. Could be "New panel with different RSTEP panelists selected from the standing roster". Rubens
On 16 Jun 2020, at 17:31, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Anne, all,
It probably got lost in the wall of text originally shared with you all in sending Package 5, but there was an extra note connected to the bullet. The bullet is reproduced below and you can find a link to the referenced Google sheet: 2.8.2 Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 20 Apr <https://community.icann.org/x/oy2JBw>). Note, an Annex is referenced in this section which will eventually mean the spreadsheet the WG developed here [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...>.
Best, Steve
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 at 1:10 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Cc: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: [Ext] Re: Reminder: Deadline today, 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5
Jeff and Cheryl, Page 79 “Ratinale for Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 5) says the WG has provided a summary of the types of actions or inactions that are inconsistent with the AGB for each type of evaluation and objection decision. Since this is a “can’t live with” deadline, could we please have that Annex xx referred to in that rationale 5? Thank you, Anne
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 11:04 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: [Ext] Re: Reminder: Deadline today, 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5
[EXTERNAL]
Dear all,
Please see attached submission from Christopher Wilkinson with input on package 5.
Kind regards,
Emily
El 16 de junio de 2020 a las 11:25 Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> escribió:
Dear all,
As a reminder, today is the deadline to submit comments on package 5 revisions (details below).
Kind regards,
Emily
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Date: Saturday, 6 June 2020 at 02:03 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5
Dear all,
The leadership team is releasing the fifth set of revised draft recommendations for your review.
There are 9 topics in package 5 here, beginning on page 74: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>. Note that the Geographic Names report from Work Track 5 is provided separately, below.
· 2.2.7 Metrics and Monitoring (This topic is intended to serve as an aggregation point for the metrics based recommendations from the various topics. Deliberations occurred in the context of the directly related topic.) · 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed 26 Mar <https://community.icann.org/x/ZiOJBw>)
· 2.4 Application Change Requests (last discussed 14 Apr <https://community.icann.org/x/nC2JBw>)
· 2.7.1 Reserved Names (last discussed 23 Apr <https://community.icann.org/x/py2JBw>)
· 2.8.1 Objections: GAC Early Warning and GAC Advice (last discussed 7 May <https://community.icann.org/x/u4PsBw>)
· 2.8.2 Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 20 Apr <https://community.icann.org/x/oy2JBw>). Note, an Annex is referenced in this section which will eventually mean the spreadsheet the WG developed here [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...>.
· 2.8.2 Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 23 Apr <https://community.icann.org/x/py2JBw>)
· 2.10.1 Base Registry Agreement (last discussed 9 Apr <https://community.icann.org/x/mS2JBw>)
· 2.7.1.2 Geographic Names (last discussed by the full WG at ICANN66 in Montreal on 2 Nov 2019 <https://community.icann.org/x/Ao7kBg>). The WT5 report is available here <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60490848/Work%20Track%205%2...>, unchanged from when it was delivered to the full WG on 22 October 2019.
Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format.
Because of the size of this particular package, the deadline for comments is Tuesday 16 June at 23:59 UTC
Comments will be tracked here: https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw <https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw>.
Best,
Steve
Steven Chan
Policy Director, GNSO Support
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
Email: steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55
Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...>
_______________________________________________ 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> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
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> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi all, This is not a “can’t live with” issue but the observation I plan to raise within the IPC for Public Comment purposes is that it still appears to me that the appeal process in relation to evaluations made internally at ICANN is duplicative and potentially wasteful. This is because we specify that the appeal lies within the evaluating entity (in this case, ICANN) and because the Request for Reconsideration process is certainly not limited to a ByLaws, Mission or Core Values violation. Request for Reconsideration includes failure to take into account material information or relying on false information and these are standard incorporated into the appeal process assessment of “clearly erroneous”. When you consider that ICANN itself would be the appeal route for any evaluation decision that is done internally, the appeal becomes merely duplicative of the Request for Reconsideration process which was revised pursuant to Workstream 2 work and is still being implemented. Therefore, I personally cannot support a separate appeal in relation to evaluations that are done internally by ICANN. I would appreciate hearing from anyone who believes this logic is out of line. (I may not have a good understanding of which processes in the chart involve internal evaluation by ICANN Stafff.) Thank you, Anne From: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:32 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: [Ext] Re: Reminder: Deadline today, 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5 Hi Anne, all, It probably got lost in the wall of text originally shared with you all in sending Package 5, but there was an extra note connected to the bullet. The bullet is reproduced below and you can find a link to the referenced Google sheet: 2.8.2 Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 20 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/oy2JBw>). Note, an Annex is referenced in this section which will eventually mean the spreadsheet the WG developed here [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...>. Best, Steve From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 at 1:10 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Cc: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: [Ext] Re: Reminder: Deadline today, 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5 Jeff and Cheryl, Page 79 “Ratinale for Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 5) says the WG has provided a summary of the types of actions or inactions that are inconsistent with the AGB for each type of evaluation and objection decision. Since this is a “can’t live with” deadline, could we please have that Annex xx referred to in that rationale 5? Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 11:04 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: [Ext] Re: Reminder: Deadline today, 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear all, Please see attached submission from Christopher Wilkinson with input on package 5. Kind regards, Emily El 16 de junio de 2020 a las 11:25 Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> escribió: Dear all, As a reminder, today is the deadline to submit comments on package 5 revisions (details below). Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Date: Saturday, 6 June 2020 at 02:03 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5 Dear all, The leadership team is releasing the fifth set of revised draft recommendations for your review. 1. There are 9 topics in package 5 here, beginning on page 74: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>. Note that the Geographic Names report from Work Track 5 is provided separately, below. · 2.2.7 Metrics and Monitoring (This topic is intended to serve as an aggregation point for the metrics based recommendations from the various topics. Deliberations occurred in the context of the directly related topic.) · 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed 26 Mar<https://community.icann.org/x/ZiOJBw>) · 2.4 Application Change Requests (last discussed 14 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/nC2JBw>) · 2.7.1 Reserved Names (last discussed 23 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/py2JBw>) · 2.8.1 Objections: GAC Early Warning and GAC Advice (last discussed 7 May<https://community.icann.org/x/u4PsBw>) · 2.8.2 Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 20 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/oy2JBw>). Note, an Annex is referenced in this section which will eventually mean the spreadsheet the WG developed here [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...>. · 2.8.2 Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 23 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/py2JBw>) · 2.10.1 Base Registry Agreement (last discussed 9 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/mS2JBw>) · 2.7.1.2 Geographic Names (last discussed by the full WG at ICANN66 in Montreal on 2 Nov 2019<https://community.icann.org/x/Ao7kBg>). The WT5 report is available here<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60490848/Work%20Track%205%2...>, unchanged from when it was delivered to the full WG on 22 October 2019. 2. Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. 3. Because of the size of this particular package, the deadline for comments is Tuesday 16 June at 23:59 UTC 4. Comments will be tracked here: https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw. Best, Steve Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email: steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=o7Auz997kA-HPv9PHJCjFVZw7Pgo8krw4MxfqCwBrIU&e=> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=kWw4fQPNjw2lVKy1UjTxS2F0BmjEAzaDFWNmsYywbmE&e=> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...> _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ 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.
Anne, Except for RSP Evaluation, all the other evaluations existed in 2012, and all of them were done by outside contractors, not ICANN itself. As for RSP Evaluation, it's speculated that it would be done by the same contractor that did PDT in 2012 and is performing RST when registries change back-ends, so it will likely join the other evaluations as not being done directly by ICANN staff. So, I believe the point that ICANN staff evaluations already have RfR as a possible redress mechanism is likely moot. Rubens
On 16 Jun 2020, at 21:15, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Hi all, This is not a “can’t live with” issue but the observation I plan to raise within the IPC for Public Comment purposes is that it still appears to me that the appeal process in relation to evaluations made internally at ICANN is duplicative and potentially wasteful. This is because we specify that the appeal lies within the evaluating entity (in this case, ICANN) and because the Request for Reconsideration process is certainly not limited to a ByLaws, Mission or Core Values violation.
Request for Reconsideration includes failure to take into account material information or relying on false information and these are standard incorporated into the appeal process assessment of “clearly erroneous”. When you consider that ICANN itself would be the appeal route for any evaluation decision that is done internally, the appeal becomes merely duplicative of the Request for Reconsideration process which was revised pursuant to Workstream 2 work and is still being implemented.
Therefore, I personally cannot support a separate appeal in relation to evaluations that are done internally by ICANN.
I would appreciate hearing from anyone who believes this logic is out of line. (I may not have a good understanding of which processes in the chart involve internal evaluation by ICANN Stafff.)
Thank you, Anne
From: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:32 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: [Ext] Re: Reminder: Deadline today, 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5
Hi Anne, all,
It probably got lost in the wall of text originally shared with you all in sending Package 5, but there was an extra note connected to the bullet. The bullet is reproduced below and you can find a link to the referenced Google sheet: 2.8.2 Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 20 Apr <https://community.icann.org/x/oy2JBw>). Note, an Annex is referenced in this section which will eventually mean the spreadsheet the WG developedhere [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...>.
Best, Steve
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 at 1:10 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Cc: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: [Ext] Re: Reminder: Deadline today, 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5
Jeff and Cheryl, Page 79 “Ratinale for Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 5) says the WG has provided a summary of the types of actions or inactions that are inconsistent with the AGB for each type of evaluation and objection decision. Since this is a “can’t live with” deadline, could we please have that Annex xx referred to in that rationale 5? Thank you, Anne
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 11:04 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: [Ext] Re: Reminder: Deadline today, 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5
[EXTERNAL] Dear all,
Please see attached submission from Christopher Wilkinson with input on package 5.
Kind regards,
Emily
El 16 de junio de 2020 a las 11:25 Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> escribió:
Dear all,
As a reminder, today is the deadline to submit comments on package 5 revisions (details below).
Kind regards,
Emily
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Date: Saturday, 6 June 2020 at 02:03 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5
Dear all,
The leadership team is releasing the fifth set of revised draft recommendations for your review.
1. There are 9 topics in package 5 here, beginning on page 74: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>. Note that the Geographic Names report from Work Track 5 is provided separately, below.
· 2.2.7 Metrics and Monitoring (This topic is intended to serve as an aggregation point for the metrics based recommendations from the various topics. Deliberations occurred in the context of the directly related topic.) · 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed 26 Mar <https://community.icann.org/x/ZiOJBw>)
· 2.4 Application Change Requests (last discussed 14 Apr <https://community.icann.org/x/nC2JBw>)
· 2.7.1 Reserved Names (last discussed 23 Apr <https://community.icann.org/x/py2JBw>)
· 2.8.1 Objections: GAC Early Warning and GAC Advice (last discussed 7 May <https://community.icann.org/x/u4PsBw>)
· 2.8.2 Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 20 Apr <https://community.icann.org/x/oy2JBw>). Note, an Annex is referenced in this section which will eventually mean the spreadsheet the WG developed here [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...>.
· 2.8.2 Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 23 Apr <https://community.icann.org/x/py2JBw>)
· 2.10.1 Base Registry Agreement (last discussed 9 Apr <https://community.icann.org/x/mS2JBw>)
· 2.7.1.2 Geographic Names (last discussed by the full WG at ICANN66 in Montreal on 2 Nov 2019 <https://community.icann.org/x/Ao7kBg>). The WT5 report is available here <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60490848/Work%20Track%205%2...>, unchanged from when it was delivered to the full WG on 22 October 2019.
2. Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format.
3. Because of the size of this particular package, the deadline for comments is Tuesday 16 June at 23:59 UTC
4. Comments will be tracked here: https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw <https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw>.
Best,
Steve
Steven Chan
Policy Director, GNSO Support
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
Email: steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55
Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...>
_______________________________________________ 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> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Rubens, *"Except for RSP Evaluation, all the other evaluations existed in 2012, and all of them were done by outside contractors, not ICANN itself."* I'm not entirely sure this is correct. I seem to recall that Background Screening (or at least part of that) was undertaken by ICANN staff, but I am happy to be corrected if I am mistaken. In any case, an additional thought has come to mind on Anne's point - I seem to recall that ICANN org may be contemplating moving some of the evaluations in-house. I can't recall which ones exactly but insofar as that is a possibility, would any of the arbiters being considered in Annex, then change? Or are we to keep our recommendations / implementation guidance simply on the basis of what happened for the 2012 round? Thanks, Justine --- On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 09:35, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Anne,
Except for RSP Evaluation, all the other evaluations existed in 2012, and all of them were done by outside contractors, not ICANN itself. As for RSP Evaluation, it's speculated that it would be done by the same contractor that did PDT in 2012 and is performing RST when registries change back-ends, so it will likely join the other evaluations as not being done directly by ICANN staff.
So, I believe the point that ICANN staff evaluations already have RfR as a possible redress mechanism is likely moot.
Rubens
On 16 Jun 2020, at 21:15, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Hi all, This is not a “can’t live with” issue but the observation I plan to raise within the IPC for Public Comment purposes is that it still appears to me that the appeal process in relation to evaluations made internally at ICANN is duplicative and potentially wasteful. This is because we specify that the appeal lies within the evaluating entity (in this case, ICANN) and because the Request for Reconsideration process is certainly not limited to a ByLaws, Mission or Core Values violation.
Request for Reconsideration includes failure to take into account material information or relying on false information and these are standard incorporated into the appeal process assessment of “clearly erroneous”. When you consider that ICANN itself would be the appeal route for any evaluation decision that is done internally, the appeal becomes merely duplicative of the Request for Reconsideration process which was revised pursuant to Workstream 2 work and is still being implemented.
Therefore, I personally cannot support a separate appeal in relation to evaluations that are done internally by ICANN.
I would appreciate hearing from anyone who believes this logic is out of line. (I may not have a good understanding of which processes in the chart involve internal evaluation by ICANN Stafff.)
Thank you, Anne
*From:* Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:32 PM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; Emily Barabas < emily.barabas@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: [Ext] Re: Reminder: Deadline today, 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5
Hi Anne, all,
It probably got lost in the wall of text originally shared with you all in sending Package 5, but there was an extra note connected to the bullet. The bullet is reproduced below and you can find a link to the referenced Google sheet:
2.8.2 Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 20 Apr <https://community.icann.org/x/oy2JBw>). Note, an Annex is referenced in this section which will eventually mean the spreadsheet the WG developedhere [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...> . Best, Steve
*From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Date: *Tuesday, June 16, 2020 at 1:10 PM *To: *Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Cc: *Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: [Ext] Re: Reminder: Deadline today, 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5
Jeff and Cheryl, Page 79 “Ratinale for Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 5) says the WG has provided a summary of the types of actions or inactions that are inconsistent with the AGB for each type of evaluation and objection decision. Since this is a “can’t live with” deadline, could we please have that Annex xx referred to in that rationale 5? Thank you, Anne
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Emily Barabas *Sent:* Tuesday, June 16, 2020 11:04 AM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: [Ext] Re: Reminder: Deadline today, 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5
*[EXTERNAL]* ------------------------------
Dear all,
Please see attached submission from Christopher Wilkinson with input on package 5.
Kind regards,
Emily
El 16 de junio de 2020 a las 11:25 Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> escribió:
Dear all,
As a reminder, today is the deadline to submit comments on package 5 revisions (details below).
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> *Date: *Saturday, 6 June 2020 at 02:03 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5
Dear all,
The leadership team is releasing the fifth set of revised draft recommendations for your review.
1. There are *9* *topics* *in* *package* *5 here, beginning on page* * 74**:* *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>. Note that the Geographic Names report from Work Track 5 is provided separately, below.*
· 2.2.7 Metrics and Monitoring (This topic is intended to serve as an aggregation point for the metrics based recommendations from the various topics. Deliberations occurred in the context of the directly related topic.)
· 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed 26 Mar <https://community.icann.org/x/ZiOJBw>)
· 2.4 Application Change Requests (last discussed 14 Apr <https://community.icann.org/x/nC2JBw>)
· 2.7.1 Reserved Names (last discussed 23 Apr <https://community.icann.org/x/py2JBw>)
· 2.8.1 Objections: GAC Early Warning and GAC Advice (last discussed 7 May <https://community.icann.org/x/u4PsBw>)
· 2.8.2 Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 20 Apr <https://community.icann.org/x/oy2JBw>). Note, an Annex is referenced in this section which will eventually mean the spreadsheet the WG developed here [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...> .
· 2.8.2 Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 23 Apr <https://community.icann.org/x/py2JBw>)
· 2.10.1 Base Registry Agreement (last discussed 9 Apr <https://community.icann.org/x/mS2JBw>)
· 2.7.1.2 Geographic Names (last discussed by the full WG at ICANN66 in Montreal on 2 Nov 2019 <https://community.icann.org/x/Ao7kBg>). The WT5 report is available here <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60490848/Work%20Track%205%2...>, unchanged from when it was delivered to the full WG on 22 October 2019.
2. *Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email.* Please do not provide your input in any other format.
3. Because of the size of this particular package, the deadline for comments is Tuesday 16* June at* *23:59 UTC*
4. Comments will be tracked here: https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw.
Best,
Steve
*Steven Chan*
Policy Director, GNSO Support
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
Email: steve.chan@icann.org
Skype: steve.chan55
Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...>
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...>
Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
------------------------------
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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
On 16 Jun 2020, at 23:00, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:
Rubens,
"Except for RSP Evaluation, all the other evaluations existed in 2012, and all of them were done by outside contractors, not ICANN itself."
I'm not entirely sure this is correct. I seem to recall that Background Screening (or at least part of that) was undertaken by ICANN staff, but I am happy to be corrected if I am mistaken.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf> Page 58 states that Pricewaterhouse (PwC) was the independent third-party that did background screening.
In any case, an additional thought has come to mind on Anne's point - I seem to recall that ICANN org may be contemplating moving some of the evaluations in-house. I can't recall which ones exactly but insofar as that is a possibility, would any of the arbiters being considered in Annex, then change? Or are we to keep our recommendations / implementation guidance simply on the basis of what happened for the 2012 round?
I think we should look at future trends, starting with what happened. Considering all my dealings with ICANN Org I was genuinely surprised when they mentioned the possibility of moving some evaluations in-house, but they also mentioned that this would be more in response to a continuing application process, not a round based one. So, we would need to look whether the post-transition RfR is now as effective as a redress mechanism as being thought in the limited appeals process. The central issue is whether substantive redress is possible, in order to not have "we followed procedure" responses. Rubens
Hi Rubens, As I said, I was not entirely sure it was correct, and I now stand corrected, thanks. And I agree on the focus being the need for substantive review, which a RfR may indeed not be well-suited to achieve. Kind regards, Justine --- On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 10:57, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
On 16 Jun 2020, at 23:00, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:
Rubens,
*"Except for RSP Evaluation, all the other evaluations existed in 2012, and all of them were done by outside contractors, not ICANN itself."*
I'm not entirely sure this is correct. I seem to recall that Background Screening (or at least part of that) was undertaken by ICANN staff, but I am happy to be corrected if I am mistaken.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf
Page 58 states that Pricewaterhouse (PwC) was the independent third-party that did background screening.
In any case, an additional thought has come to mind on Anne's point - I seem to recall that ICANN org may be contemplating moving some of the evaluations in-house. I can't recall which ones exactly but insofar as that is a possibility, would any of the arbiters being considered in Annex, then change? Or are we to keep our recommendations / implementation guidance simply on the basis of what happened for the 2012 round?
I think we should look at future trends, starting with what happened. Considering all my dealings with ICANN Org I was genuinely surprised when they mentioned the possibility of moving some evaluations in-house, but they also mentioned that this would be more in response to a continuing application process, not a round based one.
So, we would need to look whether the post-transition RfR is now as effective as a redress mechanism as being thought in the limited appeals process. The central issue is whether substantive redress is possible, in order to not have "we followed procedure" responses.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
All, Just some personal observations about Anne’s comment on Requests for Reconsideration vs. Appeals. I do not agree with Anne that simple appeals of evaluation results or dispute results would be the proper subject for Requests for Reconsideration. The Board can always argue that it relied on the judgement of the evaluators and therefore was “reasonable” in either adopting the evaluator or dispute providers decisions. But even for arguments sake, lets say Anne is right that these can be subject to RfRs. RFRs are considered by the ICANN Board. Most of the ICANN Board members (if not all) have day jobs and cannot work on ICANN activities 100% of their time. Moreover, they are not experts or specialists in every element of the new gTLD Program. So lets say you fail the technical evaluation because the ICANN outside contractor evaluator (who presumably knows about registry operations, hardware software, EPP Protocols, RDAP, technology security plans, redundancy, server farms, DNS, DNSSEC, etc). And lets assume that you failed the evaluation because you did not demonstrate an adequate understanding of RFCs 034, 1035, 1123, 1982, 2181, 2182, 3226, 3596, 3597, 4343, 5966 and 6891, or EPP RFCs 5910, 5730, 5731, 5732 (if using host objects), 5733 and 5734. Do you really believe that these appeals should go to the ICANN Board? Perhaps one or two Board members understand what that means, but the others? Why would we burden the ICANN Board with those types of decisions? Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 11:42 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] Re: Reminder: Deadline today, 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5 Hi Rubens, As I said, I was not entirely sure it was correct, and I now stand corrected, thanks. And I agree on the focus being the need for substantive review, which a RfR may indeed not be well-suited to achieve. Kind regards, Justine --- On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 10:57, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote: On 16 Jun 2020, at 23:00, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>> wrote: Rubens, "Except for RSP Evaluation, all the other evaluations existed in 2012, and all of them were done by outside contractors, not ICANN itself." I'm not entirely sure this is correct. I seem to recall that Background Screening (or at least part of that) was undertaken by ICANN staff, but I am happy to be corrected if I am mistaken. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf Page 58 states that Pricewaterhouse (PwC) was the independent third-party that did background screening. In any case, an additional thought has come to mind on Anne's point - I seem to recall that ICANN org may be contemplating moving some of the evaluations in-house. I can't recall which ones exactly but insofar as that is a possibility, would any of the arbiters being considered in Annex, then change? Or are we to keep our recommendations / implementation guidance simply on the basis of what happened for the 2012 round? I think we should look at future trends, starting with what happened. Considering all my dealings with ICANN Org I was genuinely surprised when they mentioned the possibility of moving some evaluations in-house, but they also mentioned that this would be more in response to a continuing application process, not a round based one. So, we would need to look whether the post-transition RfR is now as effective as a redress mechanism as being thought in the limited appeals process. The central issue is whether substantive redress is possible, in order to not have "we followed procedure" responses. Rubens _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>
participants (6)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Emily Barabas -
Jeff Neuman -
Justine Chew -
Rubens Kuhl -
Steve Chan