Hello All, Marika and Chuck thanks for your work. I am attaching my comments that incorporate Marika's initial feedback. Unfortunately, I somehow missed Chuck's responses. Currently reviewing them now, but wanted to get these out to the group. Best, Nic On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

Thanks Marika. I inserted some responses to your comments to continue the discussion. Hopefully, others will add their comments as well. Discussing the issues you identified will make for a good agenda item for our first call(s).

Chuck

*From:* gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org [mailto: gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings *Sent:* Monday, December 09, 2013 7:46 AM *To:* gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Draft principles - comments

To kick things off, I've added a couple of comments / questions as well as proposed edits to the draft provided by Chuck (see attached).

Best regards,

Marika

_______________________________________________ Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl mailing list Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl

-- Nic Steinbach

As requested by Chuck, please find attached an updated version of the draft principles documents in which comments have now been listed under each principle (note, I've added a couple of responses to Chuck's replies). If you have any additional comments, please use the attached version to add these. Thanks, Marika From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Tuesday 10 December 2013 02:17 To: Nic Steinbach <nic@name.com> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org" <gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Draft principles - comments Thanks a lot Nic. Rather to add more comments, I will try to respond in my message. Regarding principle 2, you said in your comment (NS3): ³Is there an objective criteria for this? I agree in principle to this principle, but this exception seems like it has the potential for abuse if left this broad. Maybe something like ³except where there is broad community consensus that there is an emergency case related to security and/or stability²² The problem as I see it with your suggestion is that if there is an emergency SSR issue, there is not time to check for community consensus. Maybe we could add something though like this: ³except in emergency cases such as risks to security and stability as defined in ICANN¹s SSR framework². In your comment on principle 3 (NS5), you said that you ³Agree with this opinion². What opinion do you agree with? I got the impression that you agree with the principle regardless of whether it differs with the current PDP manual. Is that correct? Before I respond to your other comments, let me suggest that we restructure the list of principles so that there is only one per page so that there will hopefully be room for all comments under each principle. Marika/Mary ­ would you be able to do that? If not, I can try to do it tomorrow. Chuck From: Nic Steinbach [mailto:nic@name.com] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 6:51 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Draft principles - comments Hello All, Marika and Chuck thanks for your work. I am attaching my comments that incorporate Marika's initial feedback. Unfortunately, I somehow missed Chuck's responses. Currently reviewing them now, but wanted to get these out to the group. Best, Nic On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: Thanks Marika. I inserted some responses to your comments to continue the discussion. Hopefully, others will add their comments as well. Discussing the issues you identified will make for a good agenda item for our first call(s). Chuck From:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 7:46 AM To: gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Draft principles - comments To kick things off, I've added a couple of comments / questions as well as proposed edits to the draft provided by Chuck (see attached). Best regards, Marika _______________________________________________ Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl mailing list Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl -- Nic Steinbach

Here's the next version. I accepted the previous redlined comments and added three of my responses to NIC that are redlined. Chuck From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 4:54 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Nic Steinbach Cc: gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Draft principles - comments As requested by Chuck, please find attached an updated version of the draft principles documents in which comments have now been listed under each principle (note, I've added a couple of responses to Chuck's replies). If you have any additional comments, please use the attached version to add these. Thanks, Marika From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday 10 December 2013 02:17 To: Nic Steinbach <nic@name.com<mailto:nic@name.com>> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org<mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org>" <gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org<mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Draft principles - comments Thanks a lot Nic. Rather to add more comments, I will try to respond in my message. Regarding principle 2, you said in your comment (NS3): "Is there an objective criteria for this? I agree in principle to this principle, but this exception seems like it has the potential for abuse if left this broad. Maybe something like "except where there is broad community consensus that there is an emergency case related to security and/or stability"" The problem as I see it with your suggestion is that if there is an emergency SSR issue, there is not time to check for community consensus. Maybe we could add something though like this: "except in emergency cases such as risks to security and stability as defined in ICANN's SSR framework". In your comment on principle 3 (NS5), you said that you "Agree with this opinion". What opinion do you agree with? I got the impression that you agree with the principle regardless of whether it differs with the current PDP manual. Is that correct? Before I respond to your other comments, let me suggest that we restructure the list of principles so that there is only one per page so that there will hopefully be room for all comments under each principle. Marika/Mary - would you be able to do that? If not, I can try to do it tomorrow. Chuck From: Nic Steinbach [mailto:nic@name.com] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 6:51 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org<mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Draft principles - comments Hello All, Marika and Chuck thanks for your work. I am attaching my comments that incorporate Marika's initial feedback. Unfortunately, I somehow missed Chuck's responses. Currently reviewing them now, but wanted to get these out to the group. Best, Nic On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Thanks Marika. I inserted some responses to your comments to continue the discussion. Hopefully, others will add their comments as well. Discussing the issues you identified will make for a good agenda item for our first call(s). Chuck From:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 7:46 AM To: gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org<mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Draft principles - comments To kick things off, I've added a couple of comments / questions as well as proposed edits to the draft provided by Chuck (see attached). Best regards, Marika _______________________________________________ Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl mailing list Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl -- Nic Steinbach [http://name.com/images/email-signature-logo1.jpg]

Thanks for the helpful responses Nic. It looks like you did fine with Word. The only think I did differently was to accept the previous redlines before adding mine but I was able to follow yours easily. Chuck From: Nic Steinbach [mailto:nic@name.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 2:16 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Draft principles - comments Attached is an updated version with some clarification and additional thoughts on my part. I unfortunately, am not quite as familiar with Microsoft word markup as Chuck. I apologize if I broke convention. I thought Tom brought up a good point with trying to apply the principles to real life situations. I am not very familiar with either of those two developments, but intend to take a look at them and think about them in the context of this subteam. It certainly would be useful to have concrete examples to compare the principles against in our discussons moving forward. Tom am I curious - how would you answer those questions? On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Here's the next version. I accepted the previous redlined comments and added three of my responses to NIC that are redlined. Chuck From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 4:54 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Nic Steinbach Cc: gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org<mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Draft principles - comments As requested by Chuck, please find attached an updated version of the draft principles documents in which comments have now been listed under each principle (note, I've added a couple of responses to Chuck's replies). If you have any additional comments, please use the attached version to add these. Thanks, Marika From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday 10 December 2013 02:17 To: Nic Steinbach <nic@name.com<mailto:nic@name.com>> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org<mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org>" <gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org<mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Draft principles - comments Thanks a lot Nic. Rather to add more comments, I will try to respond in my message. Regarding principle 2, you said in your comment (NS3): "Is there an objective criteria for this? I agree in principle to this principle, but this exception seems like it has the potential for abuse if left this broad. Maybe something like "except where there is broad community consensus that there is an emergency case related to security and/or stability"" The problem as I see it with your suggestion is that if there is an emergency SSR issue, there is not time to check for community consensus. Maybe we could add something though like this: "except in emergency cases such as risks to security and stability as defined in ICANN's SSR framework". In your comment on principle 3 (NS5), you said that you "Agree with this opinion". What opinion do you agree with? I got the impression that you agree with the principle regardless of whether it differs with the current PDP manual. Is that correct? Before I respond to your other comments, let me suggest that we restructure the list of principles so that there is only one per page so that there will hopefully be room for all comments under each principle. Marika/Mary - would you be able to do that? If not, I can try to do it tomorrow. Chuck From: Nic Steinbach [mailto:nic@name.com] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 6:51 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org<mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Draft principles - comments Hello All, Marika and Chuck thanks for your work. I am attaching my comments that incorporate Marika's initial feedback. Unfortunately, I somehow missed Chuck's responses. Currently reviewing them now, but wanted to get these out to the group. Best, Nic On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Thanks Marika. I inserted some responses to your comments to continue the discussion. Hopefully, others will add their comments as well. Discussing the issues you identified will make for a good agenda item for our first call(s). Chuck From:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 7:46 AM To: gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org<mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Draft principles - comments To kick things off, I've added a couple of comments / questions as well as proposed edits to the draft provided by Chuck (see attached). Best regards, Marika _______________________________________________ Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl mailing list Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl -- Nic Steinbach -- Nic Steinbach [http://name.com/images/email-signature-logo1.jpg]

Good suggestion Tom. Let me personally try to do that. Chuck From: gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tom Barrett Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 10:02 PM To: gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Draft principles - comments It would be helpful for me to see how group members would apply the P&I principles to two real-life situations. For background info, see domainincite.com. 1. How to resolve the .islam and .halal TLDs. According to domainincite, "ICANN is going to have to decide whether to approve the new gTLDs .islam and .halal, after the Governmental Advisory Committee punted the issue." [Chuck Gomes] Principle 1 says that implementation should be multi-stakeholder, so the first thing to do is to review the principles and recommendations that came out of the multi-stakeholder GNSO process. One principle from the GNSO PDP was that decisions should be based on international law; in this case, there is no international law; if there was, this would be an easy decision. Recommendation 6 for new gTLDs deals with what was originally called morality & public order but the guidelines are not very specific so it doesn't help very much. Because this is a public policy issue, we need GAC input and the GAC could not reach consensus; involving the GAC is part of the M-S process. Further M-S processes would be unlikely to help on this so the Board has to make a decision. If they rely on the input received via M-S processes (i.e., input not received), they probably need to allow the strings unless there is other M-S input that indicates otherwise. Principle 2 is for policy development so is only applicable if the Board wants to initiate a PDP on this, which would probably be non-productive. Principle 3 says that implementation processes do not need to be bottom-up unless they involve new policy so it seems to me that it is not necessary for the Board to put this out for total community input. Principle 4 might be a little helpful here: "". . Implementation should be regarded as an integral and continuing part of the political policy process rather than an administrative follow-on, and seen as a policy-action dialectic involving negotiation and bargaining between those seeking to put policy into effect and those upon whom action depends."" Some negotiation and bargaining between impacted parties (applicants and those who oppose the strings is one option. It's too late for principles 5 (policy recommendations should be clear and unambiguous) & 9 (WGs should be encouraged to provide as much implementation detail as possible) unless the Board sends it back to the GNSO, which would likely be fruitless. Principle 6 happened, i.e., the GNSO sought input from the GAC on Recommendation 6 but the input was not sufficient. I don't think principle 7 applies because this issue doesn't involve a change to policy, nor does principle 8 apply because this doesn't involve an administrative change. Principle 10 in my opinion was followed in the PDP (Policy development should be based on principles of fairness, notice and due process as well as predictability) except maybe with regard to predictability. I think the three ALAC proposed principles that make up principle 11 were mostly following by the WG; to deal with the need to be timely and to bring some closure, the WG submitted recommendations that did not satisfy all sides of issues like this one. In this case though, we may have forced the Board into making an executive decision, but only after a lot of time was spent. I think that for the most part the core values that make up principle 12 were followed in the policy development and implementation processes related to this issue. Regarding principle 13 (staff support provided in a neutral manner), I believe that happened regarding this issue both in policy development and implementation. 2. The proposal from the Brand Registry Group regarding dotbrand rules. According to domainincite, "The proposed changes were negotiated by ICANN and the Brand Registry Group, a coalition of dot-brand applicants that one day plans to become a formal part of ICANN's policy-making structure." I would be interested in hearing how others would frame these two situations: a. How would you apply the P&I principles for these two items? b. When (if at all) should the GNSO participate in these two items? Why or why not? c. Regarding the dotbrand rules: Was this "call for public comment" by ICANN the appropriate next step for the BRG proposal? Why or why not? [Chuck Gomes] I will not go through all 13 principles for this one. I think that Principle 4 is applicable here: "". . Implementation should be regarded as an integral and continuing part of the political policy process rather than an administrative follow-on, and seen as a policy-action dialectic involving negotiation and bargaining between those seeking to put policy into effect and those upon whom action depends."" This is exactly what happened here and I don't think the proposed results went against any of the policy recommendations. In fact, it appears that the proposed solution dealt with some issues that the WG did not consider in detail. Thomas Barrett EnCirca, Inc. - President 400 West Cummings Park, #1725 Woburn, MA US 01801 +1.781.942.9975 ext: 11 +1.781.823.8911 (fax) +1.781.492.1315 (cell) From: gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 7:46 AM To: gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org<mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Draft principles - comments To kick things off, I've added a couple of comments / questions as well as proposed edits to the draft provided by Chuck (see attached). Best regards, Marika