Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 04 April 2016
Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the discussion notes and action items captured by staff from the meeting on 04 April. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript. The MP3 and transcript are provided separately and are posted to the calendar at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar. Please also reference the chat room, which has been captured and provided by the GNSO Secretariat via separate email. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 04 April 2016 1. Discussion on response to Dr. Crocker (attached). Action Item: Send the letter to the GNSO Council leadership via Paul McGrady, the GNSO Council liaison, after the meeting today. Once the Council leadership reviews and approves, it will be sent to Dr. Crocker and the Board. 2. Discussion regarding principles from 2007 Final Report (please reference the attached excerpt): Decision making: Action Items: 1) Document in the notes actions to be taken at a next meeting (noting that a first reading is normally the result of discussion so may not be documentable ahead of time); 2) Keep a decision log on all decisions that have been made and the results. Principle A Jeff Neuman: Will be addressed later as an overarching principle. Principle B Alan Greenberg: Not sure this is needed anymore as it is moot.Vanda Scartezini: Could just state that TLDs can be in both ASCII and IDN formats. (General agreement in the discussion.) Principle C Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): Suggested text: "One of the reasons for introducing new top-level domains is that there is demand from potential applicants for new top-level domains in both ASCII and IDN formats. Furthermore, the introduction of new top-level domains has the potential to promote: competition in the provision of registry services; consumer choice; market differentiation; and geographical and service-provider diversity." Principle D (Summary of discussion) — Make sure that the principles sync with the new Bylaws. Principle E Jeff Neuman: Clarify that the capability criteria are operational and financial?Alan Greenberg: Leave as is for now, recognizing that we'll probably need to add sub-paragraphs to provide additional detail. Principle F (Summary of discussion) — No action. Still applies. Principle G Ayden Ferdeline: Why only the "applicant's" freedom of expression?Carlton Samuels: Say more about the string evaluation process?Greg Shatan: Put this into the recommendations, rather than principles?Kavouss Arasteh: Change the "protected" to “provided" in front of "internationally recognized”.Steve Coates: Or change to: "that are recognized under international principles of law."Robin Gross: Objection to moving from principles to recommendations. Jeff Neuman: Should be there be a way or method in the recommendations to add things that are based on new circumstances or not anticipated? Steve Coates (Twitter): Consider implications to "rolling procedures." Recommendation 1 Steve Coates (Twitter): Recommendation 1 should not be negotiable. Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): I agree that "should" would be better than "must" in the Recommendations. Kurt Pritz: It is ok that a recommendation include the word "must." "Recommendation" means Policy Recommendations that were later approved by the ICANN Board. Jeff Neuman: In addition to high-level principles there were things we wanted to be sure were included ("must"). Alan Greenberg & Greg Shatan: They may start as recommendations, but once approved by the Board they are policy. Greg Shatan: The taxonomy may be out of date/pre-go-live set up. Jeff Neuman: Should we list these as policies? Kavouss Arasteh: If you change to "policy" that may solve a lot of issues. Be very careful not to use "must" if we don't mean "must" -- minimize the use of must. Kurt Pritz: Use "must" and "shall" in the definition adopted by ICANN (https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt). Recommendation 2 Jeff Neuman: On this one there may be inherent questions -- what does "Reserve" mean? There was a subgroup in 2006-7 that worked on this definition, "what is a Reserved Name?" "Strings" here point to top-level domains. Move forward subject to definiting the terms? Recommendation 3 Jeff Neuman: This was used to create some of the objection criteria for the 2012 round. This will be discussed in one of the tracks, although not necessarily a rights-protection mechanism since this refers to strings at the top level. Robin Gross: Freedom of Expression concerns were left out of the implemention of Recommendation 3 (which only focused on trademark protection). Recommendation 4 Jeff Neuman: Would think this is non-contentious. Alan Greenberg: Change the nomenclature to "concepts" and then if there should be a taxonomy work through it later. Recommendation 5 Jeff Neuman: Define "Reserved Word" and provide more context, as suggested by Kavouss. Recommendation 6 Jeff Neuman: The group that deals with this work track should look at how this was defined. Work with it initially as a concept. Recommendation 7 Jeff Neuman: I am not sure the evaluation looked at the purpose that the applicant set out, just whether a registry could run as a registry. We will probably come back to this. Alan Greenberg: I am not sure it makes any sense. Steve Coates: Agree on the language of "purpose" tied to "technical".Kavouss Arasteh: How is this demonstration made?Rubens Kuhl: Currently they demonstrate passing a pre-delegation test: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/pdt. Jeff Neuman: Not done during the application process. May need to consider if we decide to accredit registry providers whether we do think a demonstration needs to be approved, in track 1 (process) track 5 (technical criteria/demonstration). Recommendation 8 Jeff Neuman: Never asked to demonstrate financial capabilities, but ICANN received statements and financial information. Rubens Kuhl: Only looked an financial with the angle of a commercial registry. We might choose to let financial be only a due diligence requirement for contract signing but not an application evaluation criteria. Jeff Neuman: Look at that in the relevant track. Recommendation 9 Jeff Neuman: Look at the ICANN Implementation Report, but for this one gets some comments in from the actual evaluators. Robin Gross: Do better on recommendation 9. Too much was changed after the fact and it wasn't fair. Rudi Vansnick: Agreed. Kavouss Arasteh: To whom is this addressed? What is the relation to "objective and measurable criteria" and "pre-published application process? Reword or say what we mean. Jeff Neuman: Agree that we can word this better that there should be criteria set out in advance so applicants know how they will be measured. Alan Greenberg: There may well be things that are non-objective but we should try to put in these that are non-discriminatory. Kavouss Arasteh: Are we asking ICANN to do this?Rubens Kuhl: Add "non-discriminatory"Jeff Neuman: That is a good addition. Or "except as otherwise set forth here?" Greg Shatan: Or "Where possible"? Recommendation 10 Jeff Neuman: This is one where there have been comments that there should be different base contracts? But the concept is that the applicant should know what contractual terms would apply to them. Reword that there is not only one base contract? We should talk about base contract(s) -- track 2 -- whether there should be a process to institute changes before a contract is signed. Steve Coates (Twitter): Could use improvement with additional clauses, and application of new clauses. Recommendation 11 — Replaced with 20. Recommendation 12 Jeff Neuman: We need to build in some what to have changes. Applicants need to know what dispute processes might be used against them. Robin Gross: GAC objections impact recommendation 12, not understanding what a government might object to.
Dear all May I kindly ask colleagues to point at the relevant sources (reviews of the first round, assessments etc.) taken into account when discussing the 2007 GNSO principles and recommendations? In addition, I feel that, as important reviews are still ongoing, their results may well have an impact on the assessment of this 2007 document. How will this be factored in later on? Finally, I would also like to kindly ask colleagues whether the 2007 GAC advice on new gTLDs will also be considered at this principle level, so as to factoring it in from the very beginning of this process. Apologies in advance if I have missed any prior relevant explanation about these issues. Regards and thanks Jorge Cancio GAC Rep. Switzerland Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 06.04.2016 um 00:48 schrieb Julie Hedlund via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>: Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the discussion notes and action items captured by staff from the meeting on 04 April. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript. The MP3 and transcript are provided separately and are posted to the calendar at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov>. Please also reference the chat room, which has been captured and provided by the GNSO Secretariat via separate email. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 04 April 2016 1. Discussion on response to Dr. Crocker (attached). Action Item: Send the letter to the GNSO Council leadership via Paul McGrady, the GNSO Council liaison, after the meeting today. Once the Council leadership reviews and approves, it will be sent to Dr. Crocker and the Board. 2. Discussion regarding principles from 2007 Final Report (please reference the attached excerpt): Decision making: Action Items: 1) Document in the notes actions to be taken at a next meeting (noting that a first reading is normally the result of discussion so may not be documentable ahead of time); 2) Keep a decision log on all decisions that have been made and the results. Principle A Jeff Neuman: Will be addressed later as an overarching principle. Principle B Alan Greenberg: Not sure this is needed anymore as it is moot.Vanda Scartezini: Could just state that TLDs can be in both ASCII and IDN formats. (General agreement in the discussion.) Principle C Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): Suggested text: "One of the reasons for introducing new top-level domains is that there is demand from potential applicants for new top-level domains in both ASCII and IDN formats. Furthermore, the introduction of new top-level domains has the potential to promote: competition in the provision of registry services; consumer choice; market differentiation; and geographical and service-provider diversity." Principle D (Summary of discussion) — Make sure that the principles sync with the new Bylaws. Principle E Jeff Neuman: Clarify that the capability criteria are operational and financial?Alan Greenberg: Leave as is for now, recognizing that we'll probably need to add sub-paragraphs to provide additional detail. Principle F (Summary of discussion) — No action. Still applies. Principle G Ayden Ferdeline: Why only the "applicant's" freedom of expression?Carlton Samuels: Say more about the string evaluation process?Greg Shatan: Put this into the recommendations, rather than principles?Kavouss Arasteh: Change the "protected" to “provided" in front of "internationally recognized”.Steve Coates: Or change to: "that are recognized under international principles of law."Robin Gross: Objection to moving from principles to recommendations. Jeff Neuman: Should be there be a way or method in the recommendations to add things that are based on new circumstances or not anticipated? Steve Coates (Twitter): Consider implications to "rolling procedures." Recommendation 1 Steve Coates (Twitter): Recommendation 1 should not be negotiable. Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): I agree that "should" would be better than "must" in the Recommendations. Kurt Pritz: It is ok that a recommendation include the word "must." "Recommendation" means Policy Recommendations that were later approved by the ICANN Board. Jeff Neuman: In addition to high-level principles there were things we wanted to be sure were included ("must"). Alan Greenberg & Greg Shatan: They may start as recommendations, but once approved by the Board they are policy. Greg Shatan: The taxonomy may be out of date/pre-go-live set up. Jeff Neuman: Should we list these as policies? Kavouss Arasteh: If you change to "policy" that may solve a lot of issues. Be very careful not to use "must" if we don't mean "must" -- minimize the use of must. Kurt Pritz: Use "must" and "shall" in the definition adopted by ICANN (https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt). Recommendation 2 Jeff Neuman: On this one there may be inherent questions -- what does "Reserve" mean? There was a subgroup in 2006-7 that worked on this definition, "what is a Reserved Name?" "Strings" here point to top-level domains. Move forward subject to definiting the terms? Recommendation 3 Jeff Neuman: This was used to create some of the objection criteria for the 2012 round. This will be discussed in one of the tracks, although not necessarily a rights-protection mechanism since this refers to strings at the top level. Robin Gross: Freedom of Expression concerns were left out of the implemention of Recommendation 3 (which only focused on trademark protection). Recommendation 4 Jeff Neuman: Would think this is non-contentious. Alan Greenberg: Change the nomenclature to "concepts" and then if there should be a taxonomy work through it later. Recommendation 5 Jeff Neuman: Define "Reserved Word" and provide more context, as suggested by Kavouss. Recommendation 6 Jeff Neuman: The group that deals with this work track should look at how this was defined. Work with it initially as a concept. Recommendation 7 Jeff Neuman: I am not sure the evaluation looked at the purpose that the applicant set out, just whether a registry could run as a registry. We will probably come back to this. Alan Greenberg: I am not sure it makes any sense. Steve Coates: Agree on the language of "purpose" tied to "technical".Kavouss Arasteh: How is this demonstration made?Rubens Kuhl: Currently they demonstrate passing a pre-delegation test: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/pdt. Jeff Neuman: Not done during the application process. May need to consider if we decide to accredit registry providers whether we do think a demonstration needs to be approved, in track 1 (process) track 5 (technical criteria/demonstration). Recommendation 8 Jeff Neuman: Never asked to demonstrate financial capabilities, but ICANN received statements and financial information. Rubens Kuhl: Only looked an financial with the angle of a commercial registry. We might choose to let financial be only a due diligence requirement for contract signing but not an application evaluation criteria. Jeff Neuman: Look at that in the relevant track. Recommendation 9 Jeff Neuman: Look at the ICANN Implementation Report, but for this one gets some comments in from the actual evaluators. Robin Gross: Do better on recommendation 9. Too much was changed after the fact and it wasn't fair. Rudi Vansnick: Agreed. Kavouss Arasteh: To whom is this addressed? What is the relation to "objective and measurable criteria" and "pre-published application process? Reword or say what we mean. Jeff Neuman: Agree that we can word this better that there should be criteria set out in advance so applicants know how they will be measured. Alan Greenberg: There may well be things that are non-objective but we should try to put in these that are non-discriminatory. Kavouss Arasteh: Are we asking ICANN to do this?Rubens Kuhl: Add "non-discriminatory"Jeff Neuman: That is a good addition. Or "except as otherwise set forth here?" Greg Shatan: Or "Where possible"? Recommendation 10 Jeff Neuman: This is one where there have been comments that there should be different base contracts? But the concept is that the applicant should know what contractual terms would apply to them. Reword that there is not only one base contract? We should talk about base contract(s) -- track 2 -- whether there should be a process to institute changes before a contract is signed. Steve Coates (Twitter): Could use improvement with additional clauses, and application of new clauses. Recommendation 11 — Replaced with 20. Recommendation 12 Jeff Neuman: We need to build in some what to have changes. Applicants need to know what dispute processes might be used against them. Robin Gross: GAC objections impact recommendation 12, not understanding what a government might object to. <5-4-16 High Level Principles_Excerpt.pdf> <2016-04-05-Letter from New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures-PDP-WG-to-Dr-Crocker-ICANN-Board.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks Jorge. Julie - Can we make sure that the GAC Principles are included on the PDP site? I believe this is the link: https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-principles-regarding-new-g..... The group's mandate includes taking into consideration the various reviews that are currently underway if and when they become available. For example, we have referred to the ICANN self-reviews at various times during our calls and are doing our best to coordinate with the CCT Review Team. As a PDP Working Group of the GNSO, we determined that in order to establish a baseline for our reviews and recommendations for subsequent procedures and therefore started with the 2007 GNSO New gTLD Final Report as the last "Consensus Policy" adopted on this subject matter. That said, it may help to review the GAC Principles at appropriate times when the subject matter covered by us addresses a topic that is also addressed by the GAC Principles. In order to do that I would as you and the other GAC representatives in the group to point out the relevant principle(s) that applies when we address that specific topic. We will do our best to bring those principles up at the appropriate times, but it would be great for the GAC representatives in this group to help us in case we forget. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw -----Original Message----- From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 2:41 AM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 04 April 2016 Dear all May I kindly ask colleagues to point at the relevant sources (reviews of the first round, assessments etc.) taken into account when discussing the 2007 GNSO principles and recommendations? In addition, I feel that, as important reviews are still ongoing, their results may well have an impact on the assessment of this 2007 document. How will this be factored in later on? Finally, I would also like to kindly ask colleagues whether the 2007 GAC advice on new gTLDs will also be considered at this principle level, so as to factoring it in from the very beginning of this process. Apologies in advance if I have missed any prior relevant explanation about these issues. Regards and thanks Jorge Cancio GAC Rep. Switzerland Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 06.04.2016 um 00:48 schrieb Julie Hedlund via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>: Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the discussion notes and action items captured by staff from the meeting on 04 April. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript. The MP3 and transcript are provided separately and are posted to the calendar at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov>. Please also reference the chat room, which has been captured and provided by the GNSO Secretariat via separate email. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 04 April 2016 1. Discussion on response to Dr. Crocker (attached). Action Item: Send the letter to the GNSO Council leadership via Paul McGrady, the GNSO Council liaison, after the meeting today. Once the Council leadership reviews and approves, it will be sent to Dr. Crocker and the Board. 2. Discussion regarding principles from 2007 Final Report (please reference the attached excerpt): Decision making: Action Items: 1) Document in the notes actions to be taken at a next meeting (noting that a first reading is normally the result of discussion so may not be documentable ahead of time); 2) Keep a decision log on all decisions that have been made and the results. Principle A Jeff Neuman: Will be addressed later as an overarching principle. Principle B Alan Greenberg: Not sure this is needed anymore as it is moot.Vanda Scartezini: Could just state that TLDs can be in both ASCII and IDN formats. (General agreement in the discussion.) Principle C Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): Suggested text: "One of the reasons for introducing new top-level domains is that there is demand from potential applicants for new top-level domains in both ASCII and IDN formats. Furthermore, the introduction of new top-level domains has the potential to promote: competition in the provision of registry services; consumer choice; market differentiation; and geographical and service-provider diversity." Principle D (Summary of discussion) - Make sure that the principles sync with the new Bylaws. Principle E Jeff Neuman: Clarify that the capability criteria are operational and financial?Alan Greenberg: Leave as is for now, recognizing that we'll probably need to add sub-paragraphs to provide additional detail. Principle F (Summary of discussion) - No action. Still applies. Principle G Ayden Ferdeline: Why only the "applicant's" freedom of expression?Carlton Samuels: Say more about the string evaluation process?Greg Shatan: Put this into the recommendations, rather than principles?Kavouss Arasteh: Change the "protected" to "provided" in front of "internationally recognized".Steve Coates: Or change to: "that are recognized under international principles of law."Robin Gross: Objection to moving from principles to recommendations. Jeff Neuman: Should be there be a way or method in the recommendations to add things that are based on new circumstances or not anticipated? Steve Coates (Twitter): Consider implications to "rolling procedures." Recommendation 1 Steve Coates (Twitter): Recommendation 1 should not be negotiable. Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): I agree that "should" would be better than "must" in the Recommendations. Kurt Pritz: It is ok that a recommendation include the word "must." "Recommendation" means Policy Recommendations that were later approved by the ICANN Board. Jeff Neuman: In addition to high-level principles there were things we wanted to be sure were included ("must"). Alan Greenberg & Greg Shatan: They may start as recommendations, but once approved by the Board they are policy. Greg Shatan: The taxonomy may be out of date/pre-go-live set up. Jeff Neuman: Should we list these as policies? Kavouss Arasteh: If you change to "policy" that may solve a lot of issues. Be very careful not to use "must" if we don't mean "must" -- minimize the use of must. Kurt Pritz: Use "must" and "shall" in the definition adopted by ICANN (https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt). Recommendation 2 Jeff Neuman: On this one there may be inherent questions -- what does "Reserve" mean? There was a subgroup in 2006-7 that worked on this definition, "what is a Reserved Name?" "Strings" here point to top-level domains. Move forward subject to definiting the terms? Recommendation 3 Jeff Neuman: This was used to create some of the objection criteria for the 2012 round. This will be discussed in one of the tracks, although not necessarily a rights-protection mechanism since this refers to strings at the top level. Robin Gross: Freedom of Expression concerns were left out of the implemention of Recommendation 3 (which only focused on trademark protection). Recommendation 4 Jeff Neuman: Would think this is non-contentious. Alan Greenberg: Change the nomenclature to "concepts" and then if there should be a taxonomy work through it later. Recommendation 5 Jeff Neuman: Define "Reserved Word" and provide more context, as suggested by Kavouss. Recommendation 6 Jeff Neuman: The group that deals with this work track should look at how this was defined. Work with it initially as a concept. Recommendation 7 Jeff Neuman: I am not sure the evaluation looked at the purpose that the applicant set out, just whether a registry could run as a registry. We will probably come back to this. Alan Greenberg: I am not sure it makes any sense. Steve Coates: Agree on the language of "purpose" tied to "technical".Kavouss Arasteh: How is this demonstration made?Rubens Kuhl: Currently they demonstrate passing a pre-delegation test: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/pdt. Jeff Neuman: Not done during the application process. May need to consider if we decide to accredit registry providers whether we do think a demonstration needs to be approved, in track 1 (process) track 5 (technical criteria/demonstration). Recommendation 8 Jeff Neuman: Never asked to demonstrate financial capabilities, but ICANN received statements and financial information. Rubens Kuhl: Only looked an financial with the angle of a commercial registry. We might choose to let financial be only a due diligence requirement for contract signing but not an application evaluation criteria. Jeff Neuman: Look at that in the relevant track. Recommendation 9 Jeff Neuman: Look at the ICANN Implementation Report, but for this one gets some comments in from the actual evaluators. Robin Gross: Do better on recommendation 9. Too much was changed after the fact and it wasn't fair. Rudi Vansnick: Agreed. Kavouss Arasteh: To whom is this addressed? What is the relation to "objective and measurable criteria" and "pre-published application process? Reword or say what we mean. Jeff Neuman: Agree that we can word this better that there should be criteria set out in advance so applicants know how they will be measured. Alan Greenberg: There may well be things that are non-objective but we should try to put in these that are non-discriminatory. Kavouss Arasteh: Are we asking ICANN to do this?Rubens Kuhl: Add "non-discriminatory"Jeff Neuman: That is a good addition. Or "except as otherwise set forth here?" Greg Shatan: Or "Where possible"? Recommendation 10 Jeff Neuman: This is one where there have been comments that there should be different base contracts? But the concept is that the applicant should know what contractual terms would apply to them. Reword that there is not only one base contract? We should talk about base contract(s) -- track 2 -- whether there should be a process to institute changes before a contract is signed. Steve Coates (Twitter): Could use improvement with additional clauses, and application of new clauses. Recommendation 11 - Replaced with 20. Recommendation 12 Jeff Neuman: We need to build in some what to have changes. Applicants need to know what dispute processes might be used against them. Robin Gross: GAC objections impact recommendation 12, not understanding what a government might object to. <5-4-16 High Level Principles_Excerpt.pdf> <2016-04-05-Letter from New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures-PDP-WG-to-Dr-Crocker-ICANN-Board.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Dear Jeff Thank you very much for your prompt reaction. As to the reviews, I infer drom your answer that we may need to revisit certain principles and recommendations in light of the results of the ongoing reports. As to the highlighting of relevant GAC advice I would be happy to do so (as far as time permits and in conjunction with other GAC participants). In addition, I feel it would be very practical if staff could provide the group with a mapping of the GNSO principles with the relevant GAC advice (especially the 2007 advice). This would allow us all to have a convenient and simple reference document in this regard. Hope this is helpful regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 06.04.2016 um 15:46 schrieb Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>:
Thanks Jorge.
Julie - Can we make sure that the GAC Principles are included on the PDP site? I believe this is the link: https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-principles-regarding-new-g.....
The group's mandate includes taking into consideration the various reviews that are currently underway if and when they become available. For example, we have referred to the ICANN self-reviews at various times during our calls and are doing our best to coordinate with the CCT Review Team. As a PDP Working Group of the GNSO, we determined that in order to establish a baseline for our reviews and recommendations for subsequent procedures and therefore started with the 2007 GNSO New gTLD Final Report as the last "Consensus Policy" adopted on this subject matter. That said, it may help to review the GAC Principles at appropriate times when the subject matter covered by us addresses a topic that is also addressed by the GAC Principles.
In order to do that I would as you and the other GAC representatives in the group to point out the relevant principle(s) that applies when we address that specific topic. We will do our best to bring those principles up at the appropriate times, but it would be great for the GAC representatives in this group to help us in case we forget.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 2:41 AM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 04 April 2016
Dear all
May I kindly ask colleagues to point at the relevant sources (reviews of the first round, assessments etc.) taken into account when discussing the 2007 GNSO principles and recommendations?
In addition, I feel that, as important reviews are still ongoing, their results may well have an impact on the assessment of this 2007 document. How will this be factored in later on?
Finally, I would also like to kindly ask colleagues whether the 2007 GAC advice on new gTLDs will also be considered at this principle level, so as to factoring it in from the very beginning of this process.
Apologies in advance if I have missed any prior relevant explanation about these issues.
Regards and thanks
Jorge Cancio GAC Rep. Switzerland
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 06.04.2016 um 00:48 schrieb Julie Hedlund via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>:
Dear PDP WG members,
Please see below the discussion notes and action items captured by staff from the meeting on 04 April. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript. The MP3 and transcript are provided separately and are posted to the calendar at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov>. Please also reference the chat room, which has been captured and provided by the GNSO Secretariat via separate email.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 04 April 2016
1. Discussion on response to Dr. Crocker (attached).
Action Item: Send the letter to the GNSO Council leadership via Paul McGrady, the GNSO Council liaison, after the meeting today. Once the Council leadership reviews and approves, it will be sent to Dr. Crocker and the Board.
2. Discussion regarding principles from 2007 Final Report (please reference the attached excerpt):
Decision making: Action Items: 1) Document in the notes actions to be taken at a next meeting (noting that a first reading is normally the result of discussion so may not be documentable ahead of time); 2) Keep a decision log on all decisions that have been made and the results.
Principle A Jeff Neuman: Will be addressed later as an overarching principle.
Principle B Alan Greenberg: Not sure this is needed anymore as it is moot.Vanda Scartezini: Could just state that TLDs can be in both ASCII and IDN formats. (General agreement in the discussion.)
Principle C Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): Suggested text: "One of the reasons for introducing new top-level domains is that there is demand from potential applicants for new top-level domains in both ASCII and IDN formats. Furthermore, the introduction of new top-level domains has the potential to promote: competition in the provision of registry services; consumer choice; market differentiation; and geographical and service-provider diversity."
Principle D (Summary of discussion) - Make sure that the principles sync with the new Bylaws.
Principle E Jeff Neuman: Clarify that the capability criteria are operational and financial?Alan Greenberg: Leave as is for now, recognizing that we'll probably need to add sub-paragraphs to provide additional detail.
Principle F (Summary of discussion) - No action. Still applies.
Principle G Ayden Ferdeline: Why only the "applicant's" freedom of expression?Carlton Samuels: Say more about the string evaluation process?Greg Shatan: Put this into the recommendations, rather than principles?Kavouss Arasteh: Change the "protected" to "provided" in front of "internationally recognized".Steve Coates: Or change to: "that are recognized under international principles of law."Robin Gross: Objection to moving from principles to recommendations. Jeff Neuman: Should be there be a way or method in the recommendations to add things that are based on new circumstances or not anticipated? Steve Coates (Twitter): Consider implications to "rolling procedures."
Recommendation 1 Steve Coates (Twitter): Recommendation 1 should not be negotiable. Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): I agree that "should" would be better than "must" in the Recommendations. Kurt Pritz: It is ok that a recommendation include the word "must." "Recommendation" means Policy Recommendations that were later approved by the ICANN Board. Jeff Neuman: In addition to high-level principles there were things we wanted to be sure were included ("must"). Alan Greenberg & Greg Shatan: They may start as recommendations, but once approved by the Board they are policy. Greg Shatan: The taxonomy may be out of date/pre-go-live set up. Jeff Neuman: Should we list these as policies? Kavouss Arasteh: If you change to "policy" that may solve a lot of issues. Be very careful not to use "must" if we don't mean "must" -- minimize the use of must. Kurt Pritz: Use "must" and "shall" in the definition adopted by ICANN (https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt).
Recommendation 2 Jeff Neuman: On this one there may be inherent questions -- what does "Reserve" mean? There was a subgroup in 2006-7 that worked on this definition, "what is a Reserved Name?" "Strings" here point to top-level domains. Move forward subject to definiting the terms?
Recommendation 3 Jeff Neuman: This was used to create some of the objection criteria for the 2012 round. This will be discussed in one of the tracks, although not necessarily a rights-protection mechanism since this refers to strings at the top level. Robin Gross: Freedom of Expression concerns were left out of the implemention of Recommendation 3 (which only focused on trademark protection).
Recommendation 4 Jeff Neuman: Would think this is non-contentious. Alan Greenberg: Change the nomenclature to "concepts" and then if there should be a taxonomy work through it later.
Recommendation 5 Jeff Neuman: Define "Reserved Word" and provide more context, as suggested by Kavouss.
Recommendation 6 Jeff Neuman: The group that deals with this work track should look at how this was defined. Work with it initially as a concept.
Recommendation 7 Jeff Neuman: I am not sure the evaluation looked at the purpose that the applicant set out, just whether a registry could run as a registry. We will probably come back to this. Alan Greenberg: I am not sure it makes any sense. Steve Coates: Agree on the language of "purpose" tied to "technical".Kavouss Arasteh: How is this demonstration made?Rubens Kuhl: Currently they demonstrate passing a pre-delegation test: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/pdt. Jeff Neuman: Not done during the application process. May need to consider if we decide to accredit registry providers whether we do think a demonstration needs to be approved, in track 1 (process) track 5 (technical criteria/demonstration).
Recommendation 8 Jeff Neuman: Never asked to demonstrate financial capabilities, but ICANN received statements and financial information. Rubens Kuhl: Only looked an financial with the angle of a commercial registry. We might choose to let financial be only a due diligence requirement for contract signing but not an application evaluation criteria. Jeff Neuman: Look at that in the relevant track.
Recommendation 9 Jeff Neuman: Look at the ICANN Implementation Report, but for this one gets some comments in from the actual evaluators. Robin Gross: Do better on recommendation 9. Too much was changed after the fact and it wasn't fair. Rudi Vansnick: Agreed. Kavouss Arasteh: To whom is this addressed? What is the relation to "objective and measurable criteria" and "pre-published application process? Reword or say what we mean. Jeff Neuman: Agree that we can word this better that there should be criteria set out in advance so applicants know how they will be measured. Alan Greenberg: There may well be things that are non-objective but we should try to put in these that are non-discriminatory. Kavouss Arasteh: Are we asking ICANN to do this?Rubens Kuhl: Add "non-discriminatory"Jeff Neuman: That is a good addition. Or "except as otherwise set forth here?" Greg Shatan: Or "Where possible"?
Recommendation 10 Jeff Neuman: This is one where there have been comments that there should be different base contracts? But the concept is that the applicant should know what contractual terms would apply to them. Reword that there is not only one base contract? We should talk about base contract(s) -- track 2 -- whether there should be a process to institute changes before a contract is signed. Steve Coates (Twitter): Could use improvement with additional clauses, and application of new clauses.
Recommendation 11 - Replaced with 20.
Recommendation 12 Jeff Neuman: We need to build in some what to have changes. Applicants need to know what dispute processes might be used against them. Robin Gross: GAC objections impact recommendation 12, not understanding what a government might object to.
<5-4-16 High Level Principles_Excerpt.pdf> <2016-04-05-Letter from New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures-PDP-WG-to-Dr-Crocker-ICANN-Board.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Jorge / Jeff Wouldn’t mapping the advice to the guidebook itself make more sense? Or am I missing something? (which is quite likely) Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 On 06/04/2016, 14:53, "gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg" <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Jeff
Thank you very much for your prompt reaction.
As to the reviews, I infer drom your answer that we may need to revisit certain principles and recommendations in light of the results of the ongoing reports.
As to the highlighting of relevant GAC advice I would be happy to do so (as far as time permits and in conjunction with other GAC participants).
In addition, I feel it would be very practical if staff could provide the group with a mapping of the GNSO principles with the relevant GAC advice (especially the 2007 advice). This would allow us all to have a convenient and simple reference document in this regard.
Hope this is helpful
regards
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 06.04.2016 um 15:46 schrieb Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>:
Thanks Jorge.
Julie - Can we make sure that the GAC Principles are included on the PDP site? I believe this is the link: https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-principles-regarding-new-g.....
The group's mandate includes taking into consideration the various reviews that are currently underway if and when they become available. For example, we have referred to the ICANN self-reviews at various times during our calls and are doing our best to coordinate with the CCT Review Team. As a PDP Working Group of the GNSO, we determined that in order to establish a baseline for our reviews and recommendations for subsequent procedures and therefore started with the 2007 GNSO New gTLD Final Report as the last "Consensus Policy" adopted on this subject matter. That said, it may help to review the GAC Principles at appropriate times when the subject matter covered by us addresses a topic that is also addressed by the GAC Principles.
In order to do that I would as you and the other GAC representatives in the group to point out the relevant principle(s) that applies when we address that specific topic. We will do our best to bring those principles up at the appropriate times, but it would be great for the GAC representatives in this group to help us in case we forget.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 2:41 AM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 04 April 2016
Dear all
May I kindly ask colleagues to point at the relevant sources (reviews of the first round, assessments etc.) taken into account when discussing the 2007 GNSO principles and recommendations?
In addition, I feel that, as important reviews are still ongoing, their results may well have an impact on the assessment of this 2007 document. How will this be factored in later on?
Finally, I would also like to kindly ask colleagues whether the 2007 GAC advice on new gTLDs will also be considered at this principle level, so as to factoring it in from the very beginning of this process.
Apologies in advance if I have missed any prior relevant explanation about these issues.
Regards and thanks
Jorge Cancio GAC Rep. Switzerland
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 06.04.2016 um 00:48 schrieb Julie Hedlund via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>:
Dear PDP WG members,
Please see below the discussion notes and action items captured by staff from the meeting on 04 April. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript. The MP3 and transcript are provided separately and are posted to the calendar at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov>. Please also reference the chat room, which has been captured and provided by the GNSO Secretariat via separate email.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 04 April 2016
1. Discussion on response to Dr. Crocker (attached).
Action Item: Send the letter to the GNSO Council leadership via Paul McGrady, the GNSO Council liaison, after the meeting today. Once the Council leadership reviews and approves, it will be sent to Dr. Crocker and the Board.
2. Discussion regarding principles from 2007 Final Report (please reference the attached excerpt):
Decision making: Action Items: 1) Document in the notes actions to be taken at a next meeting (noting that a first reading is normally the result of discussion so may not be documentable ahead of time); 2) Keep a decision log on all decisions that have been made and the results.
Principle A Jeff Neuman: Will be addressed later as an overarching principle.
Principle B Alan Greenberg: Not sure this is needed anymore as it is moot.Vanda Scartezini: Could just state that TLDs can be in both ASCII and IDN formats. (General agreement in the discussion.)
Principle C Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): Suggested text: "One of the reasons for introducing new top-level domains is that there is demand from potential applicants for new top-level domains in both ASCII and IDN formats. Furthermore, the introduction of new top-level domains has the potential to promote: competition in the provision of registry services; consumer choice; market differentiation; and geographical and service-provider diversity."
Principle D (Summary of discussion) - Make sure that the principles sync with the new Bylaws.
Principle E Jeff Neuman: Clarify that the capability criteria are operational and financial?Alan Greenberg: Leave as is for now, recognizing that we'll probably need to add sub-paragraphs to provide additional detail.
Principle F (Summary of discussion) - No action. Still applies.
Principle G Ayden Ferdeline: Why only the "applicant's" freedom of expression?Carlton Samuels: Say more about the string evaluation process?Greg Shatan: Put this into the recommendations, rather than principles?Kavouss Arasteh: Change the "protected" to "provided" in front of "internationally recognized".Steve Coates: Or change to: "that are recognized under international principles of law."Robin Gross: Objection to moving from principles to recommendations. Jeff Neuman: Should be there be a way or method in the recommendations to add things that are based on new circumstances or not anticipated? Steve Coates (Twitter): Consider implications to "rolling procedures."
Recommendation 1 Steve Coates (Twitter): Recommendation 1 should not be negotiable. Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): I agree that "should" would be better than "must" in the Recommendations. Kurt Pritz: It is ok that a recommendation include the word "must." "Recommendation" means Policy Recommendations that were later approved by the ICANN Board. Jeff Neuman: In addition to high-level principles there were things we wanted to be sure were included ("must"). Alan Greenberg & Greg Shatan: They may start as recommendations, but once approved by the Board they are policy. Greg Shatan: The taxonomy may be out of date/pre-go-live set up. Jeff Neuman: Should we list these as policies? Kavouss Arasteh: If you change to "policy" that may solve a lot of issues. Be very careful not to use "must" if we don't mean "must" -- minimize the use of must. Kurt Pritz: Use "must" and "shall" in the definition adopted by ICANN (https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt).
Recommendation 2 Jeff Neuman: On this one there may be inherent questions -- what does "Reserve" mean? There was a subgroup in 2006-7 that worked on this definition, "what is a Reserved Name?" "Strings" here point to top-level domains. Move forward subject to definiting the terms?
Recommendation 3 Jeff Neuman: This was used to create some of the objection criteria for the 2012 round. This will be discussed in one of the tracks, although not necessarily a rights-protection mechanism since this refers to strings at the top level. Robin Gross: Freedom of Expression concerns were left out of the implemention of Recommendation 3 (which only focused on trademark protection).
Recommendation 4 Jeff Neuman: Would think this is non-contentious. Alan Greenberg: Change the nomenclature to "concepts" and then if there should be a taxonomy work through it later.
Recommendation 5 Jeff Neuman: Define "Reserved Word" and provide more context, as suggested by Kavouss.
Recommendation 6 Jeff Neuman: The group that deals with this work track should look at how this was defined. Work with it initially as a concept.
Recommendation 7 Jeff Neuman: I am not sure the evaluation looked at the purpose that the applicant set out, just whether a registry could run as a registry. We will probably come back to this. Alan Greenberg: I am not sure it makes any sense. Steve Coates: Agree on the language of "purpose" tied to "technical".Kavouss Arasteh: How is this demonstration made?Rubens Kuhl: Currently they demonstrate passing a pre-delegation test: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/pdt. Jeff Neuman: Not done during the application process. May need to consider if we decide to accredit registry providers whether we do think a demonstration needs to be approved, in track 1 (process) track 5 (technical criteria/demonstration).
Recommendation 8 Jeff Neuman: Never asked to demonstrate financial capabilities, but ICANN received statements and financial information. Rubens Kuhl: Only looked an financial with the angle of a commercial registry. We might choose to let financial be only a due diligence requirement for contract signing but not an application evaluation criteria. Jeff Neuman: Look at that in the relevant track.
Recommendation 9 Jeff Neuman: Look at the ICANN Implementation Report, but for this one gets some comments in from the actual evaluators. Robin Gross: Do better on recommendation 9. Too much was changed after the fact and it wasn't fair. Rudi Vansnick: Agreed. Kavouss Arasteh: To whom is this addressed? What is the relation to "objective and measurable criteria" and "pre-published application process? Reword or say what we mean. Jeff Neuman: Agree that we can word this better that there should be criteria set out in advance so applicants know how they will be measured. Alan Greenberg: There may well be things that are non-objective but we should try to put in these that are non-discriminatory. Kavouss Arasteh: Are we asking ICANN to do this?Rubens Kuhl: Add "non-discriminatory"Jeff Neuman: That is a good addition. Or "except as otherwise set forth here?" Greg Shatan: Or "Where possible"?
Recommendation 10 Jeff Neuman: This is one where there have been comments that there should be different base contracts? But the concept is that the applicant should know what contractual terms would apply to them. Reword that there is not only one base contract? We should talk about base contract(s) -- track 2 -- whether there should be a process to institute changes before a contract is signed. Steve Coates (Twitter): Could use improvement with additional clauses, and application of new clauses.
Recommendation 11 - Replaced with 20.
Recommendation 12 Jeff Neuman: We need to build in some what to have changes. Applicants need to know what dispute processes might be used against them. Robin Gross: GAC objections impact recommendation 12, not understanding what a government might object to.
<5-4-16 High Level Principles_Excerpt.pdf> <2016-04-05-Letter from New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures-PDP-WG-to-Dr-Crocker-ICANN-Board.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Hi Michele No problem with that. I just felt that the GNSO principles and recs are at a similar level of abstraction as the 2007 GAC advice and that, therefore, a mutual mapping could make sense (without prejudice to mapping both? docs to the AGB later on). best Jorge Von mein iPhone gesendet
Am 06.04.2016 um 15:59 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>:
Jorge / Jeff
Wouldn’t mapping the advice to the guidebook itself make more sense?
Or am I missing something? (which is quite likely)
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 06/04/2016, 14:53, "gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg" <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Jeff
Thank you very much for your prompt reaction.
As to the reviews, I infer drom your answer that we may need to revisit certain principles and recommendations in light of the results of the ongoing reports.
As to the highlighting of relevant GAC advice I would be happy to do so (as far as time permits and in conjunction with other GAC participants).
In addition, I feel it would be very practical if staff could provide the group with a mapping of the GNSO principles with the relevant GAC advice (especially the 2007 advice). This would allow us all to have a convenient and simple reference document in this regard.
Hope this is helpful
regards
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 06.04.2016 um 15:46 schrieb Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>:
Thanks Jorge.
Julie - Can we make sure that the GAC Principles are included on the PDP site? I believe this is the link: https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-principles-regarding-new-g.....
The group's mandate includes taking into consideration the various reviews that are currently underway if and when they become available. For example, we have referred to the ICANN self-reviews at various times during our calls and are doing our best to coordinate with the CCT Review Team. As a PDP Working Group of the GNSO, we determined that in order to establish a baseline for our reviews and recommendations for subsequent procedures and therefore started with the 2007 GNSO New gTLD Final Report as the last "Consensus Policy" adopted on this subject matter. That said, it may help to review the GAC Principles at appropriate times when the subject matter covered by us addresses a topic that is also addressed by the GAC Principles.
In order to do that I would as you and the other GAC representatives in the group to point out the relevant principle(s) that applies when we address that specific topic. We will do our best to bring those principles up at the appropriate times, but it would be great for the GAC representatives in this group to help us in case we forget.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 2:41 AM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 04 April 2016
Dear all
May I kindly ask colleagues to point at the relevant sources (reviews of the first round, assessments etc.) taken into account when discussing the 2007 GNSO principles and recommendations?
In addition, I feel that, as important reviews are still ongoing, their results may well have an impact on the assessment of this 2007 document. How will this be factored in later on?
Finally, I would also like to kindly ask colleagues whether the 2007 GAC advice on new gTLDs will also be considered at this principle level, so as to factoring it in from the very beginning of this process.
Apologies in advance if I have missed any prior relevant explanation about these issues.
Regards and thanks
Jorge Cancio GAC Rep. Switzerland
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 06.04.2016 um 00:48 schrieb Julie Hedlund via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>:
Dear PDP WG members,
Please see below the discussion notes and action items captured by staff from the meeting on 04 April. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript. The MP3 and transcript are provided separately and are posted to the calendar at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov>. Please also reference the chat room, which has been captured and provided by the GNSO Secretariat via separate email.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 04 April 2016
1. Discussion on response to Dr. Crocker (attached).
Action Item: Send the letter to the GNSO Council leadership via Paul McGrady, the GNSO Council liaison, after the meeting today. Once the Council leadership reviews and approves, it will be sent to Dr. Crocker and the Board.
2. Discussion regarding principles from 2007 Final Report (please reference the attached excerpt):
Decision making: Action Items: 1) Document in the notes actions to be taken at a next meeting (noting that a first reading is normally the result of discussion so may not be documentable ahead of time); 2) Keep a decision log on all decisions that have been made and the results.
Principle A Jeff Neuman: Will be addressed later as an overarching principle.
Principle B Alan Greenberg: Not sure this is needed anymore as it is moot.Vanda Scartezini: Could just state that TLDs can be in both ASCII and IDN formats. (General agreement in the discussion.)
Principle C Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): Suggested text: "One of the reasons for introducing new top-level domains is that there is demand from potential applicants for new top-level domains in both ASCII and IDN formats. Furthermore, the introduction of new top-level domains has the potential to promote: competition in the provision of registry services; consumer choice; market differentiation; and geographical and service-provider diversity."
Principle D (Summary of discussion) - Make sure that the principles sync with the new Bylaws.
Principle E Jeff Neuman: Clarify that the capability criteria are operational and financial?Alan Greenberg: Leave as is for now, recognizing that we'll probably need to add sub-paragraphs to provide additional detail.
Principle F (Summary of discussion) - No action. Still applies.
Principle G Ayden Ferdeline: Why only the "applicant's" freedom of expression?Carlton Samuels: Say more about the string evaluation process?Greg Shatan: Put this into the recommendations, rather than principles?Kavouss Arasteh: Change the "protected" to "provided" in front of "internationally recognized".Steve Coates: Or change to: "that are recognized under international principles of law."Robin Gross: Objection to moving from principles to recommendations. Jeff Neuman: Should be there be a way or method in the recommendations to add things that are based on new circumstances or not anticipated? Steve Coates (Twitter): Consider implications to "rolling procedures."
Recommendation 1 Steve Coates (Twitter): Recommendation 1 should not be negotiable. Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): I agree that "should" would be better than "must" in the Recommendations. Kurt Pritz: It is ok that a recommendation include the word "must." "Recommendation" means Policy Recommendations that were later approved by the ICANN Board. Jeff Neuman: In addition to high-level principles there were things we wanted to be sure were included ("must"). Alan Greenberg & Greg Shatan: They may start as recommendations, but once approved by the Board they are policy. Greg Shatan: The taxonomy may be out of date/pre-go-live set up. Jeff Neuman: Should we list these as policies? Kavouss Arasteh: If you change to "policy" that may solve a lot of issues. Be very careful not to use "must" if we don't mean "must" -- minimize the use of must. Kurt Pritz: Use "must" and "shall" in the definition adopted by ICANN (https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt).
Recommendation 2 Jeff Neuman: On this one there may be inherent questions -- what does "Reserve" mean? There was a subgroup in 2006-7 that worked on this definition, "what is a Reserved Name?" "Strings" here point to top-level domains. Move forward subject to definiting the terms?
Recommendation 3 Jeff Neuman: This was used to create some of the objection criteria for the 2012 round. This will be discussed in one of the tracks, although not necessarily a rights-protection mechanism since this refers to strings at the top level. Robin Gross: Freedom of Expression concerns were left out of the implemention of Recommendation 3 (which only focused on trademark protection).
Recommendation 4 Jeff Neuman: Would think this is non-contentious. Alan Greenberg: Change the nomenclature to "concepts" and then if there should be a taxonomy work through it later.
Recommendation 5 Jeff Neuman: Define "Reserved Word" and provide more context, as suggested by Kavouss.
Recommendation 6 Jeff Neuman: The group that deals with this work track should look at how this was defined. Work with it initially as a concept.
Recommendation 7 Jeff Neuman: I am not sure the evaluation looked at the purpose that the applicant set out, just whether a registry could run as a registry. We will probably come back to this. Alan Greenberg: I am not sure it makes any sense. Steve Coates: Agree on the language of "purpose" tied to "technical".Kavouss Arasteh: How is this demonstration made?Rubens Kuhl: Currently they demonstrate passing a pre-delegation test: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/pdt. Jeff Neuman: Not done during the application process. May need to consider if we decide to accredit registry providers whether we do think a demonstration needs to be approved, in track 1 (process) track 5 (technical criteria/demonstration).
Recommendation 8 Jeff Neuman: Never asked to demonstrate financial capabilities, but ICANN received statements and financial information. Rubens Kuhl: Only looked an financial with the angle of a commercial registry. We might choose to let financial be only a due diligence requirement for contract signing but not an application evaluation criteria. Jeff Neuman: Look at that in the relevant track.
Recommendation 9 Jeff Neuman: Look at the ICANN Implementation Report, but for this one gets some comments in from the actual evaluators. Robin Gross: Do better on recommendation 9. Too much was changed after the fact and it wasn't fair. Rudi Vansnick: Agreed. Kavouss Arasteh: To whom is this addressed? What is the relation to "objective and measurable criteria" and "pre-published application process? Reword or say what we mean. Jeff Neuman: Agree that we can word this better that there should be criteria set out in advance so applicants know how they will be measured. Alan Greenberg: There may well be things that are non-objective but we should try to put in these that are non-discriminatory. Kavouss Arasteh: Are we asking ICANN to do this?Rubens Kuhl: Add "non-discriminatory"Jeff Neuman: That is a good addition. Or "except as otherwise set forth here?" Greg Shatan: Or "Where possible"?
Recommendation 10 Jeff Neuman: This is one where there have been comments that there should be different base contracts? But the concept is that the applicant should know what contractual terms would apply to them. Reword that there is not only one base contract? We should talk about base contract(s) -- track 2 -- whether there should be a process to institute changes before a contract is signed. Steve Coates (Twitter): Could use improvement with additional clauses, and application of new clauses.
Recommendation 11 - Replaced with 20.
Recommendation 12 Jeff Neuman: We need to build in some what to have changes. Applicants need to know what dispute processes might be used against them. Robin Gross: GAC objections impact recommendation 12, not understanding what a government might object to.
<5-4-16 High Level Principles_Excerpt.pdf> <2016-04-05-Letter from New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures-PDP-WG-to-Dr-Crocker-ICANN-Board.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Jorge My rationale, which may be flawed, is that the guidebook was the “bible” for the current round. And I hate abstract :) Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 On 06/04/2016, 15:03, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Hi Michele
No problem with that. I just felt that the GNSO principles and recs are at a similar level of abstraction as the 2007 GAC advice and that, therefore, a mutual mapping could make sense (without prejudice to mapping both? docs to the AGB later on).
best
Jorge Von mein iPhone gesendet
Am 06.04.2016 um 15:59 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>:
Jorge / Jeff
Wouldn’t mapping the advice to the guidebook itself make more sense?
Or am I missing something? (which is quite likely)
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 06/04/2016, 14:53, "gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg" <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Jeff
Thank you very much for your prompt reaction.
As to the reviews, I infer drom your answer that we may need to revisit certain principles and recommendations in light of the results of the ongoing reports.
As to the highlighting of relevant GAC advice I would be happy to do so (as far as time permits and in conjunction with other GAC participants).
In addition, I feel it would be very practical if staff could provide the group with a mapping of the GNSO principles with the relevant GAC advice (especially the 2007 advice). This would allow us all to have a convenient and simple reference document in this regard.
Hope this is helpful
regards
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 06.04.2016 um 15:46 schrieb Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>:
Thanks Jorge.
Julie - Can we make sure that the GAC Principles are included on the PDP site? I believe this is the link: https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-principles-regarding-new-g.....
The group's mandate includes taking into consideration the various reviews that are currently underway if and when they become available. For example, we have referred to the ICANN self-reviews at various times during our calls and are doing our best to coordinate with the CCT Review Team. As a PDP Working Group of the GNSO, we determined that in order to establish a baseline for our reviews and recommendations for subsequent procedures and therefore started with the 2007 GNSO New gTLD Final Report as the last "Consensus Policy" adopted on this subject matter. That said, it may help to review the GAC Principles at appropriate times when the subject matter covered by us addresses a topic that is also addressed by the GAC Principles.
In order to do that I would as you and the other GAC representatives in the group to point out the relevant principle(s) that applies when we address that specific topic. We will do our best to bring those principles up at the appropriate times, but it would be great for the GAC representatives in this group to help us in case we forget.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 2:41 AM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 04 April 2016
Dear all
May I kindly ask colleagues to point at the relevant sources (reviews of the first round, assessments etc.) taken into account when discussing the 2007 GNSO principles and recommendations?
In addition, I feel that, as important reviews are still ongoing, their results may well have an impact on the assessment of this 2007 document. How will this be factored in later on?
Finally, I would also like to kindly ask colleagues whether the 2007 GAC advice on new gTLDs will also be considered at this principle level, so as to factoring it in from the very beginning of this process.
Apologies in advance if I have missed any prior relevant explanation about these issues.
Regards and thanks
Jorge Cancio GAC Rep. Switzerland
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 06.04.2016 um 00:48 schrieb Julie Hedlund via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>:
Dear PDP WG members,
Please see below the discussion notes and action items captured by staff from the meeting on 04 April. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript. The MP3 and transcript are provided separately and are posted to the calendar at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov>. Please also reference the chat room, which has been captured and provided by the GNSO Secretariat via separate email.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 04 April 2016
1. Discussion on response to Dr. Crocker (attached).
Action Item: Send the letter to the GNSO Council leadership via Paul McGrady, the GNSO Council liaison, after the meeting today. Once the Council leadership reviews and approves, it will be sent to Dr. Crocker and the Board.
2. Discussion regarding principles from 2007 Final Report (please reference the attached excerpt):
Decision making: Action Items: 1) Document in the notes actions to be taken at a next meeting (noting that a first reading is normally the result of discussion so may not be documentable ahead of time); 2) Keep a decision log on all decisions that have been made and the results.
Principle A Jeff Neuman: Will be addressed later as an overarching principle.
Principle B Alan Greenberg: Not sure this is needed anymore as it is moot.Vanda Scartezini: Could just state that TLDs can be in both ASCII and IDN formats. (General agreement in the discussion.)
Principle C Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): Suggested text: "One of the reasons for introducing new top-level domains is that there is demand from potential applicants for new top-level domains in both ASCII and IDN formats. Furthermore, the introduction of new top-level domains has the potential to promote: competition in the provision of registry services; consumer choice; market differentiation; and geographical and service-provider diversity."
Principle D (Summary of discussion) - Make sure that the principles sync with the new Bylaws.
Principle E Jeff Neuman: Clarify that the capability criteria are operational and financial?Alan Greenberg: Leave as is for now, recognizing that we'll probably need to add sub-paragraphs to provide additional detail.
Principle F (Summary of discussion) - No action. Still applies.
Principle G Ayden Ferdeline: Why only the "applicant's" freedom of expression?Carlton Samuels: Say more about the string evaluation process?Greg Shatan: Put this into the recommendations, rather than principles?Kavouss Arasteh: Change the "protected" to "provided" in front of "internationally recognized".Steve Coates: Or change to: "that are recognized under international principles of law."Robin Gross: Objection to moving from principles to recommendations. Jeff Neuman: Should be there be a way or method in the recommendations to add things that are based on new circumstances or not anticipated? Steve Coates (Twitter): Consider implications to "rolling procedures."
Recommendation 1 Steve Coates (Twitter): Recommendation 1 should not be negotiable. Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): I agree that "should" would be better than "must" in the Recommendations. Kurt Pritz: It is ok that a recommendation include the word "must." "Recommendation" means Policy Recommendations that were later approved by the ICANN Board. Jeff Neuman: In addition to high-level principles there were things we wanted to be sure were included ("must"). Alan Greenberg & Greg Shatan: They may start as recommendations, but once approved by the Board they are policy. Greg Shatan: The taxonomy may be out of date/pre-go-live set up. Jeff Neuman: Should we list these as policies? Kavouss Arasteh: If you change to "policy" that may solve a lot of issues. Be very careful not to use "must" if we don't mean "must" -- minimize the use of must. Kurt Pritz: Use "must" and "shall" in the definition adopted by ICANN (https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt).
Recommendation 2 Jeff Neuman: On this one there may be inherent questions -- what does "Reserve" mean? There was a subgroup in 2006-7 that worked on this definition, "what is a Reserved Name?" "Strings" here point to top-level domains. Move forward subject to definiting the terms?
Recommendation 3 Jeff Neuman: This was used to create some of the objection criteria for the 2012 round. This will be discussed in one of the tracks, although not necessarily a rights-protection mechanism since this refers to strings at the top level. Robin Gross: Freedom of Expression concerns were left out of the implemention of Recommendation 3 (which only focused on trademark protection).
Recommendation 4 Jeff Neuman: Would think this is non-contentious. Alan Greenberg: Change the nomenclature to "concepts" and then if there should be a taxonomy work through it later.
Recommendation 5 Jeff Neuman: Define "Reserved Word" and provide more context, as suggested by Kavouss.
Recommendation 6 Jeff Neuman: The group that deals with this work track should look at how this was defined. Work with it initially as a concept.
Recommendation 7 Jeff Neuman: I am not sure the evaluation looked at the purpose that the applicant set out, just whether a registry could run as a registry. We will probably come back to this. Alan Greenberg: I am not sure it makes any sense. Steve Coates: Agree on the language of "purpose" tied to "technical".Kavouss Arasteh: How is this demonstration made?Rubens Kuhl: Currently they demonstrate passing a pre-delegation test: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/pdt. Jeff Neuman: Not done during the application process. May need to consider if we decide to accredit registry providers whether we do think a demonstration needs to be approved, in track 1 (process) track 5 (technical criteria/demonstration).
Recommendation 8 Jeff Neuman: Never asked to demonstrate financial capabilities, but ICANN received statements and financial information. Rubens Kuhl: Only looked an financial with the angle of a commercial registry. We might choose to let financial be only a due diligence requirement for contract signing but not an application evaluation criteria. Jeff Neuman: Look at that in the relevant track.
Recommendation 9 Jeff Neuman: Look at the ICANN Implementation Report, but for this one gets some comments in from the actual evaluators. Robin Gross: Do better on recommendation 9. Too much was changed after the fact and it wasn't fair. Rudi Vansnick: Agreed. Kavouss Arasteh: To whom is this addressed? What is the relation to "objective and measurable criteria" and "pre-published application process? Reword or say what we mean. Jeff Neuman: Agree that we can word this better that there should be criteria set out in advance so applicants know how they will be measured. Alan Greenberg: There may well be things that are non-objective but we should try to put in these that are non-discriminatory. Kavouss Arasteh: Are we asking ICANN to do this?Rubens Kuhl: Add "non-discriminatory"Jeff Neuman: That is a good addition. Or "except as otherwise set forth here?" Greg Shatan: Or "Where possible"?
Recommendation 10 Jeff Neuman: This is one where there have been comments that there should be different base contracts? But the concept is that the applicant should know what contractual terms would apply to them. Reword that there is not only one base contract? We should talk about base contract(s) -- track 2 -- whether there should be a process to institute changes before a contract is signed. Steve Coates (Twitter): Could use improvement with additional clauses, and application of new clauses.
Recommendation 11 - Replaced with 20.
Recommendation 12 Jeff Neuman: We need to build in some what to have changes. Applicants need to know what dispute processes might be used against them. Robin Gross: GAC objections impact recommendation 12, not understanding what a government might object to.
<5-4-16 High Level Principles_Excerpt.pdf> <2016-04-05-Letter from New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures-PDP-WG-to-Dr-Crocker-ICANN-Board.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Hi, While the guidebook may be the bible, the official starting point for policy is the set GNSO recommendations. In so far as the guidebook can be shown to be an accurate implementation of the GNSO policy recommendations that should be noted. We also need to understand the instances in which the guidebook may not accurately reflect the policy recommendations of record. That needs to be the starting point for any new or altered policy recommendations. We need to remember that at that point in time we did not have the tool of policy implementation review teams. The analysis of guidebook faithfulness to the recommendations has not been done. It is certainly possible that this PDP WG may decide to alter the 2007 policy recommendations based on a policy preference for the guidebook at times, but that is not the official starting point for any policy determinations. avri On 06-Apr-16 11:05, Michele Neylon - Blacknight via Gnso-newgtld-wg wrote:
Jorge
My rationale, which may be flawed, is that the guidebook was the “bible” for the current round.
And I hate abstract :)
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 06/04/2016, 15:03, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Hi Michele
No problem with that. I just felt that the GNSO principles and recs are at a similar level of abstraction as the 2007 GAC advice and that, therefore, a mutual mapping could make sense (without prejudice to mapping both? docs to the AGB later on).
best
Jorge Von mein iPhone gesendet
Am 06.04.2016 um 15:59 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>:
Jorge / Jeff
Wouldn’t mapping the advice to the guidebook itself make more sense?
Or am I missing something? (which is quite likely)
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 06/04/2016, 14:53, "gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg" <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Jeff
Thank you very much for your prompt reaction.
As to the reviews, I infer drom your answer that we may need to revisit certain principles and recommendations in light of the results of the ongoing reports.
As to the highlighting of relevant GAC advice I would be happy to do so (as far as time permits and in conjunction with other GAC participants).
In addition, I feel it would be very practical if staff could provide the group with a mapping of the GNSO principles with the relevant GAC advice (especially the 2007 advice). This would allow us all to have a convenient and simple reference document in this regard.
Hope this is helpful
regards
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 06.04.2016 um 15:46 schrieb Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>:
Thanks Jorge.
Julie - Can we make sure that the GAC Principles are included on the PDP site? I believe this is the link: https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-principles-regarding-new-g.....
The group's mandate includes taking into consideration the various reviews that are currently underway if and when they become available. For example, we have referred to the ICANN self-reviews at various times during our calls and are doing our best to coordinate with the CCT Review Team. As a PDP Working Group of the GNSO, we determined that in order to establish a baseline for our reviews and recommendations for subsequent procedures and therefore started with the 2007 GNSO New gTLD Final Report as the last "Consensus Policy" adopted on this subject matter. That said, it may help to review the GAC Principles at appropriate times when the subject matter covered by us addresses a topic that is also addressed by the GAC Principles.
In order to do that I would as you and the other GAC representatives in the group to point out the relevant principle(s) that applies when we address that specific topic. We will do our best to bring those principles up at the appropriate times, but it would be great for the GAC representatives in this group to help us in case we forget.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 2:41 AM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 04 April 2016
Dear all
May I kindly ask colleagues to point at the relevant sources (reviews of the first round, assessments etc.) taken into account when discussing the 2007 GNSO principles and recommendations?
In addition, I feel that, as important reviews are still ongoing, their results may well have an impact on the assessment of this 2007 document. How will this be factored in later on?
Finally, I would also like to kindly ask colleagues whether the 2007 GAC advice on new gTLDs will also be considered at this principle level, so as to factoring it in from the very beginning of this process.
Apologies in advance if I have missed any prior relevant explanation about these issues.
Regards and thanks
Jorge Cancio GAC Rep. Switzerland
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 06.04.2016 um 00:48 schrieb Julie Hedlund via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>:
Dear PDP WG members,
Please see below the discussion notes and action items captured by staff from the meeting on 04 April. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript. The MP3 and transcript are provided separately and are posted to the calendar at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov>. Please also reference the chat room, which has been captured and provided by the GNSO Secretariat via separate email.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 04 April 2016
1. Discussion on response to Dr. Crocker (attached).
Action Item: Send the letter to the GNSO Council leadership via Paul McGrady, the GNSO Council liaison, after the meeting today. Once the Council leadership reviews and approves, it will be sent to Dr. Crocker and the Board.
2. Discussion regarding principles from 2007 Final Report (please reference the attached excerpt):
Decision making: Action Items: 1) Document in the notes actions to be taken at a next meeting (noting that a first reading is normally the result of discussion so may not be documentable ahead of time); 2) Keep a decision log on all decisions that have been made and the results.
Principle A Jeff Neuman: Will be addressed later as an overarching principle.
Principle B Alan Greenberg: Not sure this is needed anymore as it is moot.Vanda Scartezini: Could just state that TLDs can be in both ASCII and IDN formats. (General agreement in the discussion.)
Principle C Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): Suggested text: "One of the reasons for introducing new top-level domains is that there is demand from potential applicants for new top-level domains in both ASCII and IDN formats. Furthermore, the introduction of new top-level domains has the potential to promote: competition in the provision of registry services; consumer choice; market differentiation; and geographical and service-provider diversity."
Principle D (Summary of discussion) - Make sure that the principles sync with the new Bylaws.
Principle E Jeff Neuman: Clarify that the capability criteria are operational and financial?Alan Greenberg: Leave as is for now, recognizing that we'll probably need to add sub-paragraphs to provide additional detail.
Principle F (Summary of discussion) - No action. Still applies.
Principle G Ayden Ferdeline: Why only the "applicant's" freedom of expression?Carlton Samuels: Say more about the string evaluation process?Greg Shatan: Put this into the recommendations, rather than principles?Kavouss Arasteh: Change the "protected" to "provided" in front of "internationally recognized".Steve Coates: Or change to: "that are recognized under international principles of law."Robin Gross: Objection to moving from principles to recommendations. Jeff Neuman: Should be there be a way or method in the recommendations to add things that are based on new circumstances or not anticipated? Steve Coates (Twitter): Consider implications to "rolling procedures."
Recommendation 1 Steve Coates (Twitter): Recommendation 1 should not be negotiable. Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): I agree that "should" would be better than "must" in the Recommendations. Kurt Pritz: It is ok that a recommendation include the word "must." "Recommendation" means Policy Recommendations that were later approved by the ICANN Board. Jeff Neuman: In addition to high-level principles there were things we wanted to be sure were included ("must"). Alan Greenberg & Greg Shatan: They may start as recommendations, but once approved by the Board they are policy. Greg Shatan: The taxonomy may be out of date/pre-go-live set up. Jeff Neuman: Should we list these as policies? Kavouss Arasteh: If you change to "policy" that may solve a lot of issues. Be very careful not to use "must" if we don't mean "must" -- minimize the use of must. Kurt Pritz: Use "must" and "shall" in the definition adopted by ICANN (https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt).
Recommendation 2 Jeff Neuman: On this one there may be inherent questions -- what does "Reserve" mean? There was a subgroup in 2006-7 that worked on this definition, "what is a Reserved Name?" "Strings" here point to top-level domains. Move forward subject to definiting the terms?
Recommendation 3 Jeff Neuman: This was used to create some of the objection criteria for the 2012 round. This will be discussed in one of the tracks, although not necessarily a rights-protection mechanism since this refers to strings at the top level. Robin Gross: Freedom of Expression concerns were left out of the implemention of Recommendation 3 (which only focused on trademark protection).
Recommendation 4 Jeff Neuman: Would think this is non-contentious. Alan Greenberg: Change the nomenclature to "concepts" and then if there should be a taxonomy work through it later.
Recommendation 5 Jeff Neuman: Define "Reserved Word" and provide more context, as suggested by Kavouss.
Recommendation 6 Jeff Neuman: The group that deals with this work track should look at how this was defined. Work with it initially as a concept.
Recommendation 7 Jeff Neuman: I am not sure the evaluation looked at the purpose that the applicant set out, just whether a registry could run as a registry. We will probably come back to this. Alan Greenberg: I am not sure it makes any sense. Steve Coates: Agree on the language of "purpose" tied to "technical".Kavouss Arasteh: How is this demonstration made?Rubens Kuhl: Currently they demonstrate passing a pre-delegation test: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/pdt. Jeff Neuman: Not done during the application process. May need to consider if we decide to accredit registry providers whether we do think a demonstration needs to be approved, in track 1 (process) track 5 (technical criteria/demonstration).
Recommendation 8 Jeff Neuman: Never asked to demonstrate financial capabilities, but ICANN received statements and financial information. Rubens Kuhl: Only looked an financial with the angle of a commercial registry. We might choose to let financial be only a due diligence requirement for contract signing but not an application evaluation criteria. Jeff Neuman: Look at that in the relevant track.
Recommendation 9 Jeff Neuman: Look at the ICANN Implementation Report, but for this one gets some comments in from the actual evaluators. Robin Gross: Do better on recommendation 9. Too much was changed after the fact and it wasn't fair. Rudi Vansnick: Agreed. Kavouss Arasteh: To whom is this addressed? What is the relation to "objective and measurable criteria" and "pre-published application process? Reword or say what we mean. Jeff Neuman: Agree that we can word this better that there should be criteria set out in advance so applicants know how they will be measured. Alan Greenberg: There may well be things that are non-objective but we should try to put in these that are non-discriminatory. Kavouss Arasteh: Are we asking ICANN to do this?Rubens Kuhl: Add "non-discriminatory"Jeff Neuman: That is a good addition. Or "except as otherwise set forth here?" Greg Shatan: Or "Where possible"?
Recommendation 10 Jeff Neuman: This is one where there have been comments that there should be different base contracts? But the concept is that the applicant should know what contractual terms would apply to them. Reword that there is not only one base contract? We should talk about base contract(s) -- track 2 -- whether there should be a process to institute changes before a contract is signed. Steve Coates (Twitter): Could use improvement with additional clauses, and application of new clauses.
Recommendation 11 - Replaced with 20.
Recommendation 12 Jeff Neuman: We need to build in some what to have changes. Applicants need to know what dispute processes might be used against them. Robin Gross: GAC objections impact recommendation 12, not understanding what a government might object to.
<5-4-16 High Level Principles_Excerpt.pdf> <2016-04-05-Letter from New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures-PDP-WG-to-Dr-Crocker-ICANN-Board.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Jeff, I’ve added the GAC Principles to the wiki on the page “5. Background Documents & Information” at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58001980. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director On 4/6/16, 9:59 AM, "gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Michele Neylon - Blacknight via Gnso-newgtld-wg" <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Jorge / Jeff
Wouldn’t mapping the advice to the guidebook itself make more sense?
Or am I missing something? (which is quite likely)
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 06/04/2016, 14:53, "gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg" <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Jeff
Thank you very much for your prompt reaction.
As to the reviews, I infer drom your answer that we may need to revisit certain principles and recommendations in light of the results of the ongoing reports.
As to the highlighting of relevant GAC advice I would be happy to do so (as far as time permits and in conjunction with other GAC participants).
In addition, I feel it would be very practical if staff could provide the group with a mapping of the GNSO principles with the relevant GAC advice (especially the 2007 advice). This would allow us all to have a convenient and simple reference document in this regard.
Hope this is helpful
regards
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 06.04.2016 um 15:46 schrieb Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>:
Thanks Jorge.
Julie - Can we make sure that the GAC Principles are included on the PDP site? I believe this is the link: https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-principles-regarding-new-g.....
The group's mandate includes taking into consideration the various reviews that are currently underway if and when they become available. For example, we have referred to the ICANN self-reviews at various times during our calls and are doing our best to coordinate with the CCT Review Team. As a PDP Working Group of the GNSO, we determined that in order to establish a baseline for our reviews and recommendations for subsequent procedures and therefore started with the 2007 GNSO New gTLD Final Report as the last "Consensus Policy" adopted on this subject matter. That said, it may help to review the GAC Principles at appropriate times when the subject matter covered by us addresses a topic that is also addressed by the GAC Principles.
In order to do that I would as you and the other GAC representatives in the group to point out the relevant principle(s) that applies when we address that specific topic. We will do our best to bring those principles up at the appropriate times, but it would be great for the GAC representatives in this group to help us in case we forget.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 2:41 AM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 04 April 2016
Dear all
May I kindly ask colleagues to point at the relevant sources (reviews of the first round, assessments etc.) taken into account when discussing the 2007 GNSO principles and recommendations?
In addition, I feel that, as important reviews are still ongoing, their results may well have an impact on the assessment of this 2007 document. How will this be factored in later on?
Finally, I would also like to kindly ask colleagues whether the 2007 GAC advice on new gTLDs will also be considered at this principle level, so as to factoring it in from the very beginning of this process.
Apologies in advance if I have missed any prior relevant explanation about these issues.
Regards and thanks
Jorge Cancio GAC Rep. Switzerland
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 06.04.2016 um 00:48 schrieb Julie Hedlund via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>:
Dear PDP WG members,
Please see below the discussion notes and action items captured by staff from the meeting on 04 April. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript. The MP3 and transcript are provided separately and are posted to the calendar at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov>. Please also reference the chat room, which has been captured and provided by the GNSO Secretariat via separate email.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 04 April 2016
1. Discussion on response to Dr. Crocker (attached).
Action Item: Send the letter to the GNSO Council leadership via Paul McGrady, the GNSO Council liaison, after the meeting today. Once the Council leadership reviews and approves, it will be sent to Dr. Crocker and the Board.
2. Discussion regarding principles from 2007 Final Report (please reference the attached excerpt):
Decision making: Action Items: 1) Document in the notes actions to be taken at a next meeting (noting that a first reading is normally the result of discussion so may not be documentable ahead of time); 2) Keep a decision log on all decisions that have been made and the results.
Principle A Jeff Neuman: Will be addressed later as an overarching principle.
Principle B Alan Greenberg: Not sure this is needed anymore as it is moot.Vanda Scartezini: Could just state that TLDs can be in both ASCII and IDN formats. (General agreement in the discussion.)
Principle C Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): Suggested text: "One of the reasons for introducing new top-level domains is that there is demand from potential applicants for new top-level domains in both ASCII and IDN formats. Furthermore, the introduction of new top-level domains has the potential to promote: competition in the provision of registry services; consumer choice; market differentiation; and geographical and service-provider diversity."
Principle D (Summary of discussion) - Make sure that the principles sync with the new Bylaws.
Principle E Jeff Neuman: Clarify that the capability criteria are operational and financial?Alan Greenberg: Leave as is for now, recognizing that we'll probably need to add sub-paragraphs to provide additional detail.
Principle F (Summary of discussion) - No action. Still applies.
Principle G Ayden Ferdeline: Why only the "applicant's" freedom of expression?Carlton Samuels: Say more about the string evaluation process?Greg Shatan: Put this into the recommendations, rather than principles?Kavouss Arasteh: Change the "protected" to "provided" in front of "internationally recognized".Steve Coates: Or change to: "that are recognized under international principles of law."Robin Gross: Objection to moving from principles to recommendations. Jeff Neuman: Should be there be a way or method in the recommendations to add things that are based on new circumstances or not anticipated? Steve Coates (Twitter): Consider implications to "rolling procedures."
Recommendation 1 Steve Coates (Twitter): Recommendation 1 should not be negotiable. Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): I agree that "should" would be better than "must" in the Recommendations. Kurt Pritz: It is ok that a recommendation include the word "must." "Recommendation" means Policy Recommendations that were later approved by the ICANN Board. Jeff Neuman: In addition to high-level principles there were things we wanted to be sure were included ("must"). Alan Greenberg & Greg Shatan: They may start as recommendations, but once approved by the Board they are policy. Greg Shatan: The taxonomy may be out of date/pre-go-live set up. Jeff Neuman: Should we list these as policies? Kavouss Arasteh: If you change to "policy" that may solve a lot of issues. Be very careful not to use "must" if we don't mean "must" -- minimize the use of must. Kurt Pritz: Use "must" and "shall" in the definition adopted by ICANN (https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt).
Recommendation 2 Jeff Neuman: On this one there may be inherent questions -- what does "Reserve" mean? There was a subgroup in 2006-7 that worked on this definition, "what is a Reserved Name?" "Strings" here point to top-level domains. Move forward subject to definiting the terms?
Recommendation 3 Jeff Neuman: This was used to create some of the objection criteria for the 2012 round. This will be discussed in one of the tracks, although not necessarily a rights-protection mechanism since this refers to strings at the top level. Robin Gross: Freedom of Expression concerns were left out of the implemention of Recommendation 3 (which only focused on trademark protection).
Recommendation 4 Jeff Neuman: Would think this is non-contentious. Alan Greenberg: Change the nomenclature to "concepts" and then if there should be a taxonomy work through it later.
Recommendation 5 Jeff Neuman: Define "Reserved Word" and provide more context, as suggested by Kavouss.
Recommendation 6 Jeff Neuman: The group that deals with this work track should look at how this was defined. Work with it initially as a concept.
Recommendation 7 Jeff Neuman: I am not sure the evaluation looked at the purpose that the applicant set out, just whether a registry could run as a registry. We will probably come back to this. Alan Greenberg: I am not sure it makes any sense. Steve Coates: Agree on the language of "purpose" tied to "technical".Kavouss Arasteh: How is this demonstration made?Rubens Kuhl: Currently they demonstrate passing a pre-delegation test: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/pdt. Jeff Neuman: Not done during the application process. May need to consider if we decide to accredit registry providers whether we do think a demonstration needs to be approved, in track 1 (process) track 5 (technical criteria/demonstration).
Recommendation 8 Jeff Neuman: Never asked to demonstrate financial capabilities, but ICANN received statements and financial information. Rubens Kuhl: Only looked an financial with the angle of a commercial registry. We might choose to let financial be only a due diligence requirement for contract signing but not an application evaluation criteria. Jeff Neuman: Look at that in the relevant track.
Recommendation 9 Jeff Neuman: Look at the ICANN Implementation Report, but for this one gets some comments in from the actual evaluators. Robin Gross: Do better on recommendation 9. Too much was changed after the fact and it wasn't fair. Rudi Vansnick: Agreed. Kavouss Arasteh: To whom is this addressed? What is the relation to "objective and measurable criteria" and "pre-published application process? Reword or say what we mean. Jeff Neuman: Agree that we can word this better that there should be criteria set out in advance so applicants know how they will be measured. Alan Greenberg: There may well be things that are non-objective but we should try to put in these that are non-discriminatory. Kavouss Arasteh: Are we asking ICANN to do this?Rubens Kuhl: Add "non-discriminatory"Jeff Neuman: That is a good addition. Or "except as otherwise set forth here?" Greg Shatan: Or "Where possible"?
Recommendation 10 Jeff Neuman: This is one where there have been comments that there should be different base contracts? But the concept is that the applicant should know what contractual terms would apply to them. Reword that there is not only one base contract? We should talk about base contract(s) -- track 2 -- whether there should be a process to institute changes before a contract is signed. Steve Coates (Twitter): Could use improvement with additional clauses, and application of new clauses.
Recommendation 11 - Replaced with 20.
Recommendation 12 Jeff Neuman: We need to build in some what to have changes. Applicants need to know what dispute processes might be used against them. Robin Gross: GAC objections impact recommendation 12, not understanding what a government might object to.
<5-4-16 High Level Principles_Excerpt.pdf> <2016-04-05-Letter from New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures-PDP-WG-to-Dr-Crocker-ICANN-Board.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Jeff, all One of the challenges with the 2007 GAC Principles is that they were considered as part of the 2007 PDP and also during the Guidebook development. We need to be understand how the Principles were considered and addressed in the context of the 2007 process in order to understand their applicability for this effort. Donna Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 6, 2016, at 6:48 AM, Jeff Neuman via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks Jorge.
Julie - Can we make sure that the GAC Principles are included on the PDP site? I believe this is the link: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archive.icann.org_en_to... ..
The group's mandate includes taking into consideration the various reviews that are currently underway if and when they become available. For example, we have referred to the ICANN self-reviews at various times during our calls and are doing our best to coordinate with the CCT Review Team. As a PDP Working Group of the GNSO, we determined that in order to establish a baseline for our reviews and recommendations for subsequent procedures and therefore started with the 2007 GNSO New gTLD Final Report as the last "Consensus Policy" adopted on this subject matter. That said, it may help to review the GAC Principles at appropriate times when the subject matter covered by us addresses a topic that is also addressed by the GAC Principles.
In order to do that I would as you and the other GAC representatives in the group to point out the relevant principle(s) that applies when we address that specific topic. We will do our best to bring those principles up at the appropriate times, but it would be great for the GAC representatives in this group to help us in case we forget.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 2:41 AM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 04 April 2016
Dear all
May I kindly ask colleagues to point at the relevant sources (reviews of the first round, assessments etc.) taken into account when discussing the 2007 GNSO principles and recommendations?
In addition, I feel that, as important reviews are still ongoing, their results may well have an impact on the assessment of this 2007 document. How will this be factored in later on?
Finally, I would also like to kindly ask colleagues whether the 2007 GAC advice on new gTLDs will also be considered at this principle level, so as to factoring it in from the very beginning of this process.
Apologies in advance if I have missed any prior relevant explanation about these issues.
Regards and thanks
Jorge Cancio GAC Rep. Switzerland
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 06.04.2016 um 00:48 schrieb Julie Hedlund via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>:
Dear PDP WG members,
Please see below the discussion notes and action items captured by staff from the meeting on 04 April. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript. The MP3 and transcript are provided separately and are posted to the calendar at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-... >. Please also reference the chat room, which has been captured and provided by the GNSO Secretariat via separate email.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 04 April 2016
1. Discussion on response to Dr. Crocker (attached).
Action Item: Send the letter to the GNSO Council leadership via Paul McGrady, the GNSO Council liaison, after the meeting today. Once the Council leadership reviews and approves, it will be sent to Dr. Crocker and the Board.
2. Discussion regarding principles from 2007 Final Report (please reference the attached excerpt):
Decision making: Action Items: 1) Document in the notes actions to be taken at a next meeting (noting that a first reading is normally the result of discussion so may not be documentable ahead of time); 2) Keep a decision log on all decisions that have been made and the results.
Principle A Jeff Neuman: Will be addressed later as an overarching principle.
Principle B Alan Greenberg: Not sure this is needed anymore as it is moot.Vanda Scartezini: Could just state that TLDs can be in both ASCII and IDN formats. (General agreement in the discussion.)
Principle C Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): Suggested text: "One of the reasons for introducing new top-level domains is that there is demand from potential applicants for new top-level domains in both ASCII and IDN formats. Furthermore, the introduction of new top-level domains has the potential to promote: competition in the provision of registry services; consumer choice; market differentiation; and geographical and service-provider diversity."
Principle D (Summary of discussion) - Make sure that the principles sync with the new Bylaws.
Principle E Jeff Neuman: Clarify that the capability criteria are operational and financial?Alan Greenberg: Leave as is for now, recognizing that we'll probably need to add sub-paragraphs to provide additional detail.
Principle F (Summary of discussion) - No action. Still applies.
Principle G Ayden Ferdeline: Why only the "applicant's" freedom of expression?Carlton Samuels: Say more about the string evaluation process?Greg Shatan: Put this into the recommendations, rather than principles?Kavouss Arasteh: Change the "protected" to "provided" in front of "internationally recognized".Steve Coates: Or change to: "that are recognized under international principles of law."Robin Gross: Objection to moving from principles to recommendations. Jeff Neuman: Should be there be a way or method in the recommendations to add things that are based on new circumstances or not anticipated? Steve Coates (Twitter): Consider implications to "rolling procedures."
Recommendation 1 Steve Coates (Twitter): Recommendation 1 should not be negotiable. Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): I agree that "should" would be better than "must" in the Recommendations. Kurt Pritz: It is ok that a recommendation include the word "must." "Recommendation" means Policy Recommendations that were later approved by the ICANN Board. Jeff Neuman: In addition to high-level principles there were things we wanted to be sure were included ("must"). Alan Greenberg & Greg Shatan: They may start as recommendations, but once approved by the Board they are policy. Greg Shatan: The taxonomy may be out of date/pre-go-live set up. Jeff Neuman: Should we list these as policies? Kavouss Arasteh: If you change to "policy" that may solve a lot of issues. Be very careful not to use "must" if we don't mean "must" -- minimize the use of must. Kurt Pritz: Use "must" and "shall" in the definition adopted by ICANN (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_rfc_rfc211... ).
Recommendation 2 Jeff Neuman: On this one there may be inherent questions -- what does "Reserve" mean? There was a subgroup in 2006-7 that worked on this definition, "what is a Reserved Name?" "Strings" here point to top-level domains. Move forward subject to definiting the terms?
Recommendation 3 Jeff Neuman: This was used to create some of the objection criteria for the 2012 round. This will be discussed in one of the tracks, although not necessarily a rights-protection mechanism since this refers to strings at the top level. Robin Gross: Freedom of Expression concerns were left out of the implemention of Recommendation 3 (which only focused on trademark protection).
Recommendation 4 Jeff Neuman: Would think this is non-contentious. Alan Greenberg: Change the nomenclature to "concepts" and then if there should be a taxonomy work through it later.
Recommendation 5 Jeff Neuman: Define "Reserved Word" and provide more context, as suggested by Kavouss.
Recommendation 6 Jeff Neuman: The group that deals with this work track should look at how this was defined. Work with it initially as a concept.
Recommendation 7 Jeff Neuman: I am not sure the evaluation looked at the purpose that the applicant set out, just whether a registry could run as a registry. We will probably come back to this. Alan Greenberg: I am not sure it makes any sense. Steve Coates: Agree on the language of "purpose" tied to "technical".Kavouss Arasteh: How is this demonstration made?Rubens Kuhl: Currently they demonstrate passing a pre-delegation test: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a... . Jeff Neuman: Not done during the application process. May need to consider if we decide to accredit registry providers whether we do think a demonstration needs to be approved, in track 1 (process) track 5 (technical criteria/demonstration).
Recommendation 8 Jeff Neuman: Never asked to demonstrate financial capabilities, but ICANN received statements and financial information. Rubens Kuhl: Only looked an financial with the angle of a commercial registry. We might choose to let financial be only a due diligence requirement for contract signing but not an application evaluation criteria. Jeff Neuman: Look at that in the relevant track.
Recommendation 9 Jeff Neuman: Look at the ICANN Implementation Report, but for this one gets some comments in from the actual evaluators. Robin Gross: Do better on recommendation 9. Too much was changed after the fact and it wasn't fair. Rudi Vansnick: Agreed. Kavouss Arasteh: To whom is this addressed? What is the relation to "objective and measurable criteria" and "pre-published application process? Reword or say what we mean. Jeff Neuman: Agree that we can word this better that there should be criteria set out in advance so applicants know how they will be measured. Alan Greenberg: There may well be things that are non-objective but we should try to put in these that are non-discriminatory. Kavouss Arasteh: Are we asking ICANN to do this?Rubens Kuhl: Add "non-discriminatory"Jeff Neuman: That is a good addition. Or "except as otherwise set forth here?" Greg Shatan: Or "Where possible"?
Recommendation 10 Jeff Neuman: This is one where there have been comments that there should be different base contracts? But the concept is that the applicant should know what contractual terms would apply to them. Reword that there is not only one base contract? We should talk about base contract(s) -- track 2 -- whether there should be a process to institute changes before a contract is signed. Steve Coates (Twitter): Could use improvement with additional clauses, and application of new clauses.
Recommendation 11 - Replaced with 20.
Recommendation 12 Jeff Neuman: We need to build in some what to have changes. Applicants need to know what dispute processes might be used against them. Robin Gross: GAC objections impact recommendation 12, not understanding what a government might object to.
<5-4-16 High Level Principles_Excerpt.pdf> <2016-04-05-Letter from New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures-PDP-WG-to-Dr-Crocker-ICANN-Board.pdf> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
Donna, all Point taken. I can do some research on the GAC side. TD Sent from my iPhone
On 7 Apr 2016, at 10:21 AM, Austin, Donna via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Jeff, all
One of the challenges with the 2007 GAC Principles is that they were considered as part of the 2007 PDP and also during the Guidebook development. We need to be understand how the Principles were considered and addressed in the context of the 2007 process in order to understand their applicability for this effort.
Donna
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 6, 2016, at 6:48 AM, Jeff Neuman via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks Jorge.
Julie - Can we make sure that the GAC Principles are included on the PDP site? I believe this is the link: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archive.icann.org_en_to... ..
The group's mandate includes taking into consideration the various reviews that are currently underway if and when they become available. For example, we have referred to the ICANN self-reviews at various times during our calls and are doing our best to coordinate with the CCT Review Team. As a PDP Working Group of the GNSO, we determined that in order to establish a baseline for our reviews and recommendations for subsequent procedures and therefore started with the 2007 GNSO New gTLD Final Report as the last "Consensus Policy" adopted on this subject matter. That said, it may help to review the GAC Principles at appropriate times when the subject matter covered by us addresses a topic that is also addressed by the GAC Principles.
In order to do that I would as you and the other GAC representatives in the group to point out the relevant principle(s) that applies when we address that specific topic. We will do our best to bring those principles up at the appropriate times, but it would be great for the GAC representatives in this group to help us in case we forget.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 2:41 AM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 04 April 2016
Dear all
May I kindly ask colleagues to point at the relevant sources (reviews of the first round, assessments etc.) taken into account when discussing the 2007 GNSO principles and recommendations?
In addition, I feel that, as important reviews are still ongoing, their results may well have an impact on the assessment of this 2007 document. How will this be factored in later on?
Finally, I would also like to kindly ask colleagues whether the 2007 GAC advice on new gTLDs will also be considered at this principle level, so as to factoring it in from the very beginning of this process.
Apologies in advance if I have missed any prior relevant explanation about these issues.
Regards and thanks
Jorge Cancio GAC Rep. Switzerland
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 06.04.2016 um 00:48 schrieb Julie Hedlund via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>:
Dear PDP WG members,
Please see below the discussion notes and action items captured by staff from the meeting on 04 April. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript. The MP3 and transcript are provided separately and are posted to the calendar at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-... >. Please also reference the chat room, which has been captured and provided by the GNSO Secr etariat via separate email.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 04 April 2016
1. Discussion on response to Dr. Crocker (attached).
Action Item: Send the letter to the GNSO Council leadership via Paul McGrady, the GNSO Council liaison, after the meeting today. Once the Council leadership reviews and approves, it will be sent to Dr. Crocker and the Board.
2. Discussion regarding principles from 2007 Final Report (please reference the attached excerpt):
Decision making: Action Items: 1) Document in the notes actions to be taken at a next meeting (noting that a first reading is normally the result of discussion so may not be documentable ahead of time); 2) Keep a decision log on all decisions that have been made and the results.
Principle A Jeff Neuman: Will be addressed later as an overarching principle.
Principle B Alan Greenberg: Not sure this is needed anymore as it is moot.Vanda Scartezini: Could just state that TLDs can be in both ASCII and IDN formats. (General agreement in the discussion.)
Principle C Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): Suggested text: "One of the reasons for introducing new top-level domains is that there is demand from potential applicants for new top-level domains in both ASCII and IDN formats. Furthermore, the introduction of new top-level domains has the potential to promote: competition in the provision of registry services; consumer choice; market differentiation; and geographical and service-provider diversity."
Principle D (Summary of discussion) - Make sure that the principles sync with the new Bylaws.
Principle E Jeff Neuman: Clarify that the capability criteria are operational and financial?Alan Greenberg: Leave as is for now, recognizing that we'll probably need to add sub-paragraphs to provide additional detail.
Principle F (Summary of discussion) - No action. Still applies.
Principle G Ayden Ferdeline: Why only the "applicant's" freedom of expression?Carlton Samuels: Say more about the string evaluation process?Greg Shatan: Put this into the recommendations, rather than principles?Kavouss Arasteh: Change the "protected" to "provided" in front of "internationally recognized".Steve Coates: Or change to: "that are recognized under international principles of law."Robin Gross: Objection to moving from principles to recommendations. Jeff Neuman: Should be there be a way or method in the recommendations to add things that are based on new circumstances or not anticipated? Steve Coates (Twitter): Consider implications to "rolling procedures."
Recommendation 1 Steve Coates (Twitter): Recommendation 1 should not be negotiable. Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): I agree that "should" would be better than "must" in the Recommendations. Kurt Pritz: It is ok that a recommendation include the word "must." "Recommendation" means Policy Recommendations that were later approved by the ICANN Board. Jeff Neuman: In addition to high-level principles there were things we wanted to be sure were included ("must"). Alan Greenberg & Greg Shatan: They may start as recommendations, but once approved by the Board they are policy. Greg Shatan: The taxonomy may be out of date/pre-go-live set up. Jeff Neuman: Should we list these as policies? Kavouss Arasteh: If you change to "policy" that may solve a lot of issues. Be very careful not to use "must" if we don't mean "must" -- minimize the use of must. Kurt Pritz: Use "must" and "shall" in the definition adopted by ICANN (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_rfc_rfc211... ).
Recommendation 2 Jeff Neuman: On this one there may be inherent questions -- what does "Reserve" mean? There was a subgroup in 2006-7 that worked on this definition, "what is a Reserved Name?" "Strings" here point to top-level domains. Move forward subject to definiting the terms?
Recommendation 3 Jeff Neuman: This was used to create some of the objection criteria for the 2012 round. This will be discussed in one of the tracks, although not necessarily a rights-protection mechanism since this refers to strings at the top level. Robin Gross: Freedom of Expression concerns were left out of the implemention of Recommendation 3 (which only focused on trademark protection).
Recommendation 4 Jeff Neuman: Would think this is non-contentious. Alan Greenberg: Change the nomenclature to "concepts" and then if there should be a taxonomy work through it later.
Recommendation 5 Jeff Neuman: Define "Reserved Word" and provide more context, as suggested by Kavouss.
Recommendation 6 Jeff Neuman: The group that deals with this work track should look at how this was defined. Work with it initially as a concept.
Recommendation 7 Jeff Neuman: I am not sure the evaluation looked at the purpose that the applicant set out, just whether a registry could run as a registry. We will probably come back to this. Alan Greenberg: I am not sure it makes any sense. Steve Coates: Agree on the language of "purpose" tied to "technical".Kavouss Arasteh: How is this demonstration made?Rubens Kuhl: Currently they demonstrate passing a pre-delegation test: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a... . Jeff Neuman: Not done during the application process. May need to consider if we decide to accredit registry providers whether we do think a demonstration needs to be approved, in track 1 (process) track 5 (technical criteria/demonstration).
Recommendation 8 Jeff Neuman: Never asked to demonstrate financial capabilities, but ICANN received statements and financial information. Rubens Kuhl: Only looked an financial with the angle of a commercial registry. We might choose to let financial be only a due diligence requirement for contract signing but not an application evaluation criteria. Jeff Neuman: Look at that in the relevant track.
Recommendation 9 Jeff Neuman: Look at the ICANN Implementation Report, but for this one gets some comments in from the actual evaluators. Robin Gross: Do better on recommendation 9. Too much was changed after the fact and it wasn't fair. Rudi Vansnick: Agreed. Kavouss Arasteh: To whom is this addressed? What is the relation to "objective and measurable criteria" and "pre-published application process? Reword or say what we mean. Jeff Neuman: Agree that we can word this better that there should be criteria set out in advance so applicants know how they will be measured. Alan Greenberg: There may well be things that are non-objective but we should try to put in these that are non-discriminatory. Kavouss Arasteh: Are we asking ICANN to do this?Rubens Kuhl: Add "non-discriminatory"Jeff Neuman: That is a good addition. Or "except as otherwise set forth here?" Greg Shatan: Or "Where possible"?
Recommendation 10 Jeff Neuman: This is one where there have been comments that there should be different base contracts? But the concept is that the applicant should know what contractual terms would apply to them. Reword that there is not only one base contract? We should talk about base contract(s) -- track 2 -- whether there should be a process to institute changes before a contract is signed. Steve Coates (Twitter): Could use improvement with additional clauses, and application of new clauses.
Recommendation 11 - Replaced with 20.
Recommendation 12 Jeff Neuman: We need to build in some what to have changes. Applicants need to know what dispute processes might be used against them. Robin Gross: GAC objections impact recommendation 12, not understanding what a government might object to.
<5-4-16 High Level Principles_Excerpt.pdf> <2016-04-05-Letter from New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures-PDP-WG-to-Dr-Crocker-ICANN-Board.pdf> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Steve Chan, all This point about the GAC Advice is an important one, and there is presumably very useful information on the GNSO side too which Tom's research would not necessarily surface. Will ICANN staff be preparing a report of all GAC advice issued relating to the new gTLD process and how that was considered/addressed by the Board / New gTLD Program Committee? Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tom Dale via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: 07 April 2016 01:40 To: Austin, Donna Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 04 April 2016 Donna, all Point taken. I can do some research on the GAC side. TD Sent from my iPhone
On 7 Apr 2016, at 10:21 AM, Austin, Donna via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Jeff, all
One of the challenges with the 2007 GAC Principles is that they were considered as part of the 2007 PDP and also during the Guidebook development. We need to be understand how the Principles were considered and addressed in the context of the 2007 process in order to understand their applicability for this effort.
Donna
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 6, 2016, at 6:48 AM, Jeff Neuman via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks Jorge.
Julie - Can we make sure that the GAC Principles are included on the PDP site? I believe this is the link: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archive.icann.org_en_to... ..
The group's mandate includes taking into consideration the various reviews that are currently underway if and when they become available. For example, we have referred to the ICANN self-reviews at various times during our calls and are doing our best to coordinate with the CCT Review Team. As a PDP Working Group of the GNSO, we determined that in order to establish a baseline for our reviews and recommendations for subsequent procedures and therefore started with the 2007 GNSO New gTLD Final Report as the last "Consensus Policy" adopted on this subject matter. That said, it may help to review the GAC Principles at appropriate times when the subject matter covered by us addresses a topic that is also addressed by the GAC Principles.
In order to do that I would as you and the other GAC representatives in the group to point out the relevant principle(s) that applies when we address that specific topic. We will do our best to bring those principles up at the appropriate times, but it would be great for the GAC representatives in this group to help us in case we forget.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 2:41 AM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 04 April 2016
Dear all
May I kindly ask colleagues to point at the relevant sources (reviews of the first round, assessments etc.) taken into account when discussing the 2007 GNSO principles and recommendations?
In addition, I feel that, as important reviews are still ongoing, their results may well have an impact on the assessment of this 2007 document. How will this be factored in later on?
Finally, I would also like to kindly ask colleagues whether the 2007 GAC advice on new gTLDs will also be considered at this principle level, so as to factoring it in from the very beginning of this process.
Apologies in advance if I have missed any prior relevant explanation about these issues.
Regards and thanks
Jorge Cancio GAC Rep. Switzerland
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 06.04.2016 um 00:48 schrieb Julie Hedlund via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>:
Dear PDP WG members,
Please see below the discussion notes and action items captured by staff from the meeting on 04 April. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript. The MP3 and transcript are provided separately and are posted to the calendar at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en _group-2Dactivities_calendar&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3L wUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=24hBB8aQbVUh4e62v8E7WpHl7kO XhilMMe42d7glEB4&s=aj8uJ9VAMBcHK5q9N2nc6NABijt74OQYZp2nFhRrpMI&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_e n_group-2Dactivities_calendar-23nov&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw &r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=24hBB8aQbVUh4e62v8E7 WpHl7kOXhilMMe42d7glEB4&s=VqKmHmUbsCaQxUi_IiLHLIeHhreVA-RZpSK4FlBxmNk &e= >. Please also reference the chat room, which has been captured and provided by the GNSO Sec r etariat via separate email.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 04 April 2016
1. Discussion on response to Dr. Crocker (attached).
Action Item: Send the letter to the GNSO Council leadership via Paul McGrady, the GNSO Council liaison, after the meeting today. Once the Council leadership reviews and approves, it will be sent to Dr. Crocker and the Board.
2. Discussion regarding principles from 2007 Final Report (please reference the attached excerpt):
Decision making: Action Items: 1) Document in the notes actions to be taken at a next meeting (noting that a first reading is normally the result of discussion so may not be documentable ahead of time); 2) Keep a decision log on all decisions that have been made and the results.
Principle A Jeff Neuman: Will be addressed later as an overarching principle.
Principle B Alan Greenberg: Not sure this is needed anymore as it is moot.Vanda Scartezini: Could just state that TLDs can be in both ASCII and IDN formats. (General agreement in the discussion.)
Principle C Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): Suggested text: "One of the reasons for introducing new top-level domains is that there is demand from potential applicants for new top-level domains in both ASCII and IDN formats. Furthermore, the introduction of new top-level domains has the potential to promote: competition in the provision of registry services; consumer choice; market differentiation; and geographical and service-provider diversity."
Principle D (Summary of discussion) - Make sure that the principles sync with the new Bylaws.
Principle E Jeff Neuman: Clarify that the capability criteria are operational and financial?Alan Greenberg: Leave as is for now, recognizing that we'll probably need to add sub-paragraphs to provide additional detail.
Principle F (Summary of discussion) - No action. Still applies.
Principle G Ayden Ferdeline: Why only the "applicant's" freedom of expression?Carlton Samuels: Say more about the string evaluation process?Greg Shatan: Put this into the recommendations, rather than principles?Kavouss Arasteh: Change the "protected" to "provided" in front of "internationally recognized".Steve Coates: Or change to: "that are recognized under international principles of law."Robin Gross: Objection to moving from principles to recommendations. Jeff Neuman: Should be there be a way or method in the recommendations to add things that are based on new circumstances or not anticipated? Steve Coates (Twitter): Consider implications to "rolling procedures."
Recommendation 1 Steve Coates (Twitter): Recommendation 1 should not be negotiable. Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): I agree that "should" would be better than "must" in the Recommendations. Kurt Pritz: It is ok that a recommendation include the word "must." "Recommendation" means Policy Recommendations that were later approved by the ICANN Board. Jeff Neuman: In addition to high-level principles there were things we wanted to be sure were included ("must"). Alan Greenberg & Greg Shatan: They may start as recommendations, but once approved by the Board they are policy. Greg Shatan: The taxonomy may be out of date/pre-go-live set up. Jeff Neuman: Should we list these as policies? Kavouss Arasteh: If you change to "policy" that may solve a lot of issues. Be very careful not to use "must" if we don't mean "must" -- minimize the use of must. Kurt Pritz: Use "must" and "shall" in the definition adopted by ICANN (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_rfc_rfc211... ).
Recommendation 2 Jeff Neuman: On this one there may be inherent questions -- what does "Reserve" mean? There was a subgroup in 2006-7 that worked on this definition, "what is a Reserved Name?" "Strings" here point to top-level domains. Move forward subject to definiting the terms?
Recommendation 3 Jeff Neuman: This was used to create some of the objection criteria for the 2012 round. This will be discussed in one of the tracks, although not necessarily a rights-protection mechanism since this refers to strings at the top level. Robin Gross: Freedom of Expression concerns were left out of the implemention of Recommendation 3 (which only focused on trademark protection).
Recommendation 4 Jeff Neuman: Would think this is non-contentious. Alan Greenberg: Change the nomenclature to "concepts" and then if there should be a taxonomy work through it later.
Recommendation 5 Jeff Neuman: Define "Reserved Word" and provide more context, as suggested by Kavouss.
Recommendation 6 Jeff Neuman: The group that deals with this work track should look at how this was defined. Work with it initially as a concept.
Recommendation 7 Jeff Neuman: I am not sure the evaluation looked at the purpose that the applicant set out, just whether a registry could run as a registry. We will probably come back to this. Alan Greenberg: I am not sure it makes any sense. Steve Coates: Agree on the language of "purpose" tied to "technical".Kavouss Arasteh: How is this demonstration made?Rubens Kuhl: Currently they demonstrate passing a pre-delegation test: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a... . Jeff Neuman: Not done during the application process. May need to consider if we decide to accredit registry providers whether we do think a demonstration needs to be approved, in track 1 (process) track 5 (technical criteria/demonstration).
Recommendation 8 Jeff Neuman: Never asked to demonstrate financial capabilities, but ICANN received statements and financial information. Rubens Kuhl: Only looked an financial with the angle of a commercial registry. We might choose to let financial be only a due diligence requirement for contract signing but not an application evaluation criteria. Jeff Neuman: Look at that in the relevant track.
Recommendation 9 Jeff Neuman: Look at the ICANN Implementation Report, but for this one gets some comments in from the actual evaluators. Robin Gross: Do better on recommendation 9. Too much was changed after the fact and it wasn't fair. Rudi Vansnick: Agreed. Kavouss Arasteh: To whom is this addressed? What is the relation to "objective and measurable criteria" and "pre-published application process? Reword or say what we mean. Jeff Neuman: Agree that we can word this better that there should be criteria set out in advance so applicants know how they will be measured. Alan Greenberg: There may well be things that are non-objective but we should try to put in these that are non-discriminatory. Kavouss Arasteh: Are we asking ICANN to do this?Rubens Kuhl: Add "non-discriminatory"Jeff Neuman: That is a good addition. Or "except as otherwise set forth here?" Greg Shatan: Or "Where possible"?
Recommendation 10 Jeff Neuman: This is one where there have been comments that there should be different base contracts? But the concept is that the applicant should know what contractual terms would apply to them. Reword that there is not only one base contract? We should talk about base contract(s) -- track 2 -- whether there should be a process to institute changes before a contract is signed. Steve Coates (Twitter): Could use improvement with additional clauses, and application of new clauses.
Recommendation 11 - Replaced with 20.
Recommendation 12 Jeff Neuman: We need to build in some what to have changes. Applicants need to know what dispute processes might be used against them. Robin Gross: GAC objections impact recommendation 12, not understanding what a government might object to.
<5-4-16 High Level Principles_Excerpt.pdf> <2016-04-05-Letter from New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures-PDP-WG-to-Dr-Crocker-ICANN-Board.pdf> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_listinfo_gnso-2Dnewgtld-2Dwg&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r =4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=24hBB8aQbVUh4e62v8E7Wp Hl7kOXhilMMe42d7glEB4&s=RytMXDazOiT1XRvIXM7rF9SRMoKl2nxk9shEdBys90g&e = _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_listinfo_gnso-2Dnewgtld-2Dwg&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r =4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=24hBB8aQbVUh4e62v8E7Wp Hl7kOXhilMMe42d7glEB4&s=RytMXDazOiT1XRvIXM7rF9SRMoKl2nxk9shEdBys90g&e = _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_listinfo_gnso-2Dnewgtld-2Dwg&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r =4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=24hBB8aQbVUh4e62v8E7Wp Hl7kOXhilMMe42d7glEB4&s=RytMXDazOiT1XRvIXM7rF9SRMoKl2nxk9shEdBys90g&e =
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Dear Susan, all Staff performed research regarding GAC Advice today and found some existing resources that may be useful for the WG to consider. The first is the GAC Register of Advice related to New gTLDs: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/New+gTLDs The second is a historical documentation of a series of face to face meetings between the ICANN Board of Directors and the GAC in early 2011: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/historical-documentation/board-gac-consu... And thirdly, and perhaps most relevant to your request, is a “Comprehensive Report of NGPC Responses to GAC Advice re: the New gTLD Program (as of 7 October 2015)”. The period covered is from the Beijing meeting in 2013 through the Dublin meeting last year: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gac-advice-scorecard-07oct15-en.... This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of GAC inputs and responses, but is hopefully helpful. Best, Steve On 4/7/16, 8:21 AM, "gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Susan Payne via Gnso-newgtld-wg" <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Steve Chan, all
This point about the GAC Advice is an important one, and there is presumably very useful information on the GNSO side too which Tom's research would not necessarily surface. Will ICANN staff be preparing a report of all GAC advice issued relating to the new gTLD process and how that was considered/addressed by the Board / New gTLD Program Committee?
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd
E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tom Dale via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: 07 April 2016 01:40 To: Austin, Donna Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 04 April 2016
Donna, all
Point taken. I can do some research on the GAC side.
TD
Sent from my iPhone
On 7 Apr 2016, at 10:21 AM, Austin, Donna via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Jeff, all
One of the challenges with the 2007 GAC Principles is that they were considered as part of the 2007 PDP and also during the Guidebook development. We need to be understand how the Principles were considered and addressed in the context of the 2007 process in order to understand their applicability for this effort.
Donna
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 6, 2016, at 6:48 AM, Jeff Neuman via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks Jorge.
Julie - Can we make sure that the GAC Principles are included on the PDP site? I believe this is the link: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archive.icann.org_en_to... ..
The group's mandate includes taking into consideration the various reviews that are currently underway if and when they become available. For example, we have referred to the ICANN self-reviews at various times during our calls and are doing our best to coordinate with the CCT Review Team. As a PDP Working Group of the GNSO, we determined that in order to establish a baseline for our reviews and recommendations for subsequent procedures and therefore started with the 2007 GNSO New gTLD Final Report as the last "Consensus Policy" adopted on this subject matter. That said, it may help to review the GAC Principles at appropriate times when the subject matter covered by us addresses a topic that is also addressed by the GAC Principles.
In order to do that I would as you and the other GAC representatives in the group to point out the relevant principle(s) that applies when we address that specific topic. We will do our best to bring those principles up at the appropriate times, but it would be great for the GAC representatives in this group to help us in case we forget.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 2:41 AM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 04 April 2016
Dear all
May I kindly ask colleagues to point at the relevant sources (reviews of the first round, assessments etc.) taken into account when discussing the 2007 GNSO principles and recommendations?
In addition, I feel that, as important reviews are still ongoing, their results may well have an impact on the assessment of this 2007 document. How will this be factored in later on?
Finally, I would also like to kindly ask colleagues whether the 2007 GAC advice on new gTLDs will also be considered at this principle level, so as to factoring it in from the very beginning of this process.
Apologies in advance if I have missed any prior relevant explanation about these issues.
Regards and thanks
Jorge Cancio GAC Rep. Switzerland
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 06.04.2016 um 00:48 schrieb Julie Hedlund via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>:
Dear PDP WG members,
Please see below the discussion notes and action items captured by staff from the meeting on 04 April. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript. The MP3 and transcript are provided separately and are posted to the calendar at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en _group-2Dactivities_calendar&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3L wUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=24hBB8aQbVUh4e62v8E7WpHl7kO XhilMMe42d7glEB4&s=aj8uJ9VAMBcHK5q9N2nc6NABijt74OQYZp2nFhRrpMI&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_e n_group-2Dactivities_calendar-23nov&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw &r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=24hBB8aQbVUh4e62v8E7 WpHl7kOXhilMMe42d7glEB4&s=VqKmHmUbsCaQxUi_IiLHLIeHhreVA-RZpSK4FlBxmNk &e= >. Please also reference the chat room, which has been captured and provided by the GNSO Sec r etariat via separate email.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 04 April 2016
1. Discussion on response to Dr. Crocker (attached).
Action Item: Send the letter to the GNSO Council leadership via Paul McGrady, the GNSO Council liaison, after the meeting today. Once the Council leadership reviews and approves, it will be sent to Dr. Crocker and the Board.
2. Discussion regarding principles from 2007 Final Report (please reference the attached excerpt):
Decision making: Action Items: 1) Document in the notes actions to be taken at a next meeting (noting that a first reading is normally the result of discussion so may not be documentable ahead of time); 2) Keep a decision log on all decisions that have been made and the results.
Principle A Jeff Neuman: Will be addressed later as an overarching principle.
Principle B Alan Greenberg: Not sure this is needed anymore as it is moot.Vanda Scartezini: Could just state that TLDs can be in both ASCII and IDN formats. (General agreement in the discussion.)
Principle C Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): Suggested text: "One of the reasons for introducing new top-level domains is that there is demand from potential applicants for new top-level domains in both ASCII and IDN formats. Furthermore, the introduction of new top-level domains has the potential to promote: competition in the provision of registry services; consumer choice; market differentiation; and geographical and service-provider diversity."
Principle D (Summary of discussion) - Make sure that the principles sync with the new Bylaws.
Principle E Jeff Neuman: Clarify that the capability criteria are operational and financial?Alan Greenberg: Leave as is for now, recognizing that we'll probably need to add sub-paragraphs to provide additional detail.
Principle F (Summary of discussion) - No action. Still applies.
Principle G Ayden Ferdeline: Why only the "applicant's" freedom of expression?Carlton Samuels: Say more about the string evaluation process?Greg Shatan: Put this into the recommendations, rather than principles?Kavouss Arasteh: Change the "protected" to "provided" in front of "internationally recognized".Steve Coates: Or change to: "that are recognized under international principles of law."Robin Gross: Objection to moving from principles to recommendations. Jeff Neuman: Should be there be a way or method in the recommendations to add things that are based on new circumstances or not anticipated? Steve Coates (Twitter): Consider implications to "rolling procedures."
Recommendation 1 Steve Coates (Twitter): Recommendation 1 should not be negotiable. Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): I agree that "should" would be better than "must" in the Recommendations. Kurt Pritz: It is ok that a recommendation include the word "must." "Recommendation" means Policy Recommendations that were later approved by the ICANN Board. Jeff Neuman: In addition to high-level principles there were things we wanted to be sure were included ("must"). Alan Greenberg & Greg Shatan: They may start as recommendations, but once approved by the Board they are policy. Greg Shatan: The taxonomy may be out of date/pre-go-live set up. Jeff Neuman: Should we list these as policies? Kavouss Arasteh: If you change to "policy" that may solve a lot of issues. Be very careful not to use "must" if we don't mean "must" -- minimize the use of must. Kurt Pritz: Use "must" and "shall" in the definition adopted by ICANN (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_rfc_rfc211... ).
Recommendation 2 Jeff Neuman: On this one there may be inherent questions -- what does "Reserve" mean? There was a subgroup in 2006-7 that worked on this definition, "what is a Reserved Name?" "Strings" here point to top-level domains. Move forward subject to definiting the terms?
Recommendation 3 Jeff Neuman: This was used to create some of the objection criteria for the 2012 round. This will be discussed in one of the tracks, although not necessarily a rights-protection mechanism since this refers to strings at the top level. Robin Gross: Freedom of Expression concerns were left out of the implemention of Recommendation 3 (which only focused on trademark protection).
Recommendation 4 Jeff Neuman: Would think this is non-contentious. Alan Greenberg: Change the nomenclature to "concepts" and then if there should be a taxonomy work through it later.
Recommendation 5 Jeff Neuman: Define "Reserved Word" and provide more context, as suggested by Kavouss.
Recommendation 6 Jeff Neuman: The group that deals with this work track should look at how this was defined. Work with it initially as a concept.
Recommendation 7 Jeff Neuman: I am not sure the evaluation looked at the purpose that the applicant set out, just whether a registry could run as a registry. We will probably come back to this. Alan Greenberg: I am not sure it makes any sense. Steve Coates: Agree on the language of "purpose" tied to "technical".Kavouss Arasteh: How is this demonstration made?Rubens Kuhl: Currently they demonstrate passing a pre-delegation test: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a... . Jeff Neuman: Not done during the application process. May need to consider if we decide to accredit registry providers whether we do think a demonstration needs to be approved, in track 1 (process) track 5 (technical criteria/demonstration).
Recommendation 8 Jeff Neuman: Never asked to demonstrate financial capabilities, but ICANN received statements and financial information. Rubens Kuhl: Only looked an financial with the angle of a commercial registry. We might choose to let financial be only a due diligence requirement for contract signing but not an application evaluation criteria. Jeff Neuman: Look at that in the relevant track.
Recommendation 9 Jeff Neuman: Look at the ICANN Implementation Report, but for this one gets some comments in from the actual evaluators. Robin Gross: Do better on recommendation 9. Too much was changed after the fact and it wasn't fair. Rudi Vansnick: Agreed. Kavouss Arasteh: To whom is this addressed? What is the relation to "objective and measurable criteria" and "pre-published application process? Reword or say what we mean. Jeff Neuman: Agree that we can word this better that there should be criteria set out in advance so applicants know how they will be measured. Alan Greenberg: There may well be things that are non-objective but we should try to put in these that are non-discriminatory. Kavouss Arasteh: Are we asking ICANN to do this?Rubens Kuhl: Add "non-discriminatory"Jeff Neuman: That is a good addition. Or "except as otherwise set forth here?" Greg Shatan: Or "Where possible"?
Recommendation 10 Jeff Neuman: This is one where there have been comments that there should be different base contracts? But the concept is that the applicant should know what contractual terms would apply to them. Reword that there is not only one base contract? We should talk about base contract(s) -- track 2 -- whether there should be a process to institute changes before a contract is signed. Steve Coates (Twitter): Could use improvement with additional clauses, and application of new clauses.
Recommendation 11 - Replaced with 20.
Recommendation 12 Jeff Neuman: We need to build in some what to have changes. Applicants need to know what dispute processes might be used against them. Robin Gross: GAC objections impact recommendation 12, not understanding what a government might object to.
<5-4-16 High Level Principles_Excerpt.pdf> <2016-04-05-Letter from New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures-PDP-WG-to-Dr-Crocker-ICANN-Board.pdf> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_listinfo_gnso-2Dnewgtld-2Dwg&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r =4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=24hBB8aQbVUh4e62v8E7Wp Hl7kOXhilMMe42d7glEB4&s=RytMXDazOiT1XRvIXM7rF9SRMoKl2nxk9shEdBys90g&e = _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_listinfo_gnso-2Dnewgtld-2Dwg&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r =4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=24hBB8aQbVUh4e62v8E7Wp Hl7kOXhilMMe42d7glEB4&s=RytMXDazOiT1XRvIXM7rF9SRMoKl2nxk9shEdBys90g&e = _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_listinfo_gnso-2Dnewgtld-2Dwg&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r =4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=24hBB8aQbVUh4e62v8E7Wp Hl7kOXhilMMe42d7glEB4&s=RytMXDazOiT1XRvIXM7rF9SRMoKl2nxk9shEdBys90g&e =
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
participants (9)
-
Austin, Donna -
avri doria -
Jeff Neuman -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Julie Hedlund -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Steve Chan -
Susan Payne -
Tom Dale