Dear All, For those currently on the full group call, we are currently discussing WG member edits and comments to this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LC-1-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ7.... For those who prefer to follow the discussion using a Microsoft Word document, please see attached. This is the document currently on display in the AC room. Kind regards, Emily From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Monday 24 April 2017 at 21:33 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Cc: 'avri' <avri@acm.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: [Ext] Re: Please Review by 24 April: SubPro Comments - CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations Sending to the list this time… From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 11:57 AM To: 'Rosette, Kristina'; Emily Barabas Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] Re: Please Review by 24 April: SubPro Comments - CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations Hi Kristina, I read 1.1(c ) as not permitting any sort of regulation of unique identifiers outside the mission specified in 1.1(a), which includes whatever is need to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet. So maybe a correlation between the identifier and the content is – or else is not – part of maintaining consumer trust and confidence in the Internet? (This seems to be the issue raised by the Review.) I consider that if 1.1(c ) would prohibit this entirely, then GAC Safeguard strings are not allowed either but they do exist. Anne Section 1.1. MISSION (a) The mission of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) is to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique identifier systems as described in this Section 1.1(a) (the “Mission”). Specifically, ICANN: (i) Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (“DNS”) and coordinates the development and implementation of policies concerning the registration of second-level domain names in generic top-level domains (“gTLDs”). In this role, ICANN’s scope is to coordinate the development and implementation of policies: • For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS including, with respect to gTLD registrars and registries, policies in the areas described in Annex G-1 and Annex G-2; and • That are developed through a bottom-up consensus-based multistakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique names systems. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D2BD4B.E4E2EE80] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 11:15 AM To: Emily Barabas; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] Re: Please Review by 24 April: SubPro Comments - CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations Hi, I’ve added a few comments and suggestions in the Word doc (attached). Summary below: • Recommendation 14: Requests that CCT-RT clarify how “relationship of content of a gTLD to its name” is consistent with Section 1.1(c) of the Bylaws; • Recommendations 33 & 35: Comment made about recommendation 34 (CCT to clarify how expect PDP WG to address recommendation given scope of Sub Pro WG) seems applicable here, too. • Recommendation 43: Requests CCT-RT clarify if it is recommending that applications from Global South should be subject to different application evaluation standards to ensure goals met for number of delegated strings. • Recommendation 46: added “objection-related fees” as example of “additional post application fees”. Happy to answer any questions by email or on today’s call. Kristina From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 8:15 AM To: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email<mailto:jon@donuts.email>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] Re: Please Review by 24 April: SubPro Comments - CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations Hi Jon, Thanks for this feedback. I’ve added your comment to the Google doc for easier reference during the call at 20:00 UTC. Kind regards, Emily From: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email<mailto:jon@donuts.email>> Date: Monday 24 April 2017 at 15:32 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Please Review by 24 April: SubPro Comments - CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations I think that we give way too much deference to the CCT-RT report in the quote from the draft letter below. While we absolutely should take the appointed review group's input into our deliberations, does it really matter if the review group expects us to strictly interpret and implement its recommendations, for example? It is the GNSO that is tasked with recommending policy to the Board under ICANN's Bylaws. I don't think that we should be asking another group whether it thinks we have latitude to suggest alternative solutions that meet or do not meet the spirit of its recommendations. JN "It would be helpful for the CCT-RT to clarify how strictly it expects the PDP WG to interpret and adhere to the language of the recommendations. To what extent is it appropriate for the Working Group to recommend alternative mechanisms or policies that meet the spirit of the CCT-RT recommendations? Alternately, does the CCT-RT view the obligation as more limited -- that the PDP must consider the recommendation but may end up with an outcome that is inconsistent or conflicting with CCT-RT recommendations? If the CCT-RT expects the Working Group to strictly interpret and implement the language of the recommendations, it would be helpful to have clear definitions for terminology used in the document." On Apr 21, 2017, at 7:39 AM, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Gentle reminder – Please review and provide feedback on the SubPro draft comments for the CCT-RT Report prior to the full Working Group meeting on Monday 24 April at 20:00 UTC. The draft comments are available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LC-1-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ7.... Kind regards, Emily From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday 18 April 2017 at 21:54 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Please Review by 24 April: SubPro Comments - CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations Dear all, The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG leadership team has prepared draft comments in response to the CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LC-1-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ7.... The draft text draws from WG discussion with representatives of the CCT-RT on our 10 April Working Group call. Please provide feedback and suggested edits prior to the full Working Group meeting on Monday 24 April at 20:00 UTC. For those who do not use Google Docs, a Microsoft Word version is attached to this email. The WG will consider proposed revisions during the 24 April call, after which the leadership team will finalize and submit the text. The deadline for public comments on the CCT-RT Draft Report is 27 April 2017. Please note that the purpose of this comment is to pose clarifying questions and make suggestions about the language of the Draft Recommendations to help the CCT-RT refine the text for the Final Report. The goal is not to provide substantive responses to the Recommendations, as the text of the Report is not yet final. Please let the leadership team know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 _______________________________________________ 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.