Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies
Hi Ariel, If the language on page 8 had been clearer to specify that an RVC can be developed in response to a GAC Early Warning and that RCE would result, I would not have had to repeat this comment during the call today and you would have gotten through more of your draft text. Please try to look at all draft language again from the perspective of a new applicant who does not "know the ropes". As many commented in chat, clarity for new applicants is very important. I still say that RCE in response to a GAC Early Warning could delay other processes and in fact, an Applicant might want to delay the process to avoid additional fees so please consider that possibility. As Susan said, it may not belong in the Exceptions paragraph, but it could be covered on page 8. Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 12:00 PM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:
If we don't say on page 8 that an applicant can develop an RVC in response to an EArly Warning, that will not be clear to new applicants.
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 11:59 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Anne,
Happy to discuss further, but the reason that the GAC Early Warning is not being featured like the GAC Advice is because a proposed RVC in response to the GAC Early Warning is not regarded as an “exception” described under Section 3.2.4. It falls under the general rule as described under Section 3.2.3. On page 8 of the google doc, we have this sentence:
*“…An RVC could also institute safeguards that may help overcome a third-party concern with an applied-for gTLD string or application, such as Objections, GAC Early Warnings or Advice, application comments, or other issues that might otherwise negatively impact the application’s evaluation process. See [Section xx - Application Change Requests] and [Section xx - Community Input] for further details about these topics.”*
If you have further questions, happy to address during the call.
Best,
Ariel
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Thursday, January 9, 2025 at 1:50 PM *To: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Cc: *Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital>, Nigel Hickson < nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies
Thanks Ariel. I guess what I'm getting at is that Applicant could file a new or amended RVC in response to an early warning. The section on page 8 just says it's a good idea to engage with the GAC. The section on new or amended RVCs in 3.4 only discusses such a process in relation to GAC Advice, but not in relation to Early Warning.
So it does not appear that the language accurately reflects a process whereby an RVC is developed in response to a GAC Early Warning and that was clearly contemplated by the Clarifying Language issued by the Council when it advised the Board that the intention was to provide for RVCs only as permitted by the ByLaws.
It therefore looks as though the language re Early Warning needs to be amended to contemplate this fact situation. And it appears 3.4 may also need revision to reflect this. Others on the call may have a different point of view, but I think some have acknowledged that an RVC can be developed in response to an Early Warning.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 10:03 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Yes, you may find the reference on pages 8 and 11 of the draft text on google doc.
Best,
Ariel
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, January 8, 2025 at 11:49 AM *To: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Cc: *Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital>, Nigel Hickson < nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies
Thanks Ariel. Does the term, GAC Early Warning, actually appear in this text? Can you point me to that reference?
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 9:22 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks for the further elaboration on your thought process, Anne.
Since the RVC topic will be discussed tomorrow during the IRT meeting, it would be great to hear other’s thoughts on this. In my mind, an RVC in response to a GAC Early Warning would be very similar to an RVC in response to an application comment, in the sense that the RVC may be proposed, as an Application Change Request, to address a concern raised by a third party. There is no other separate process being brought into the mix in those situations, unlike the ones relating to GAC Advice and Objection, which would involve the Board and the DRSP respectively. Would be helpful to understand what specific delay would happen in the case of GAC Early Warning.
Thank you, and speak soon tomorrow.
Best,
Ariel
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 10:16 PM *To: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Cc: *Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital>, Nigel Hickson < nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies
Thanks Ariel. The reason I think that this fact situation could present a possible time delay is because every RVC must undergo an Evaluation. Thus, it strikes me that there is potential delay wherever the RVC is not a pre-approved "Safeguard".
Whether or not to proceed in the face of an Early Warning without negotiating an RVC with the GAC country that issues it is of course, a business risk decision to be made by the Applicant. Nevertheless, it seems to me that proposing an RVC in response to a GAC Early Warning could involve some delay.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 7:44 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks all for the discussion on this topic! Agree that it would be sensible that the applicant shouldn’t “ignore” a GAC Early Warning and tries to address it in order to avoid the risk of a GAC Advice.
To answer Anne’s follow up question regarding whether a proposed RVC to address GAC Early Warning should be included in the “Exceptions” section, we don’t believe this would be the case.
Proposed RVCs to overcome GAC Advice and Objection are “special”, because in those situations, a separate process is brought into the mix (e.g., Board consideration of the GAC Advice, Objection process), and the proposed RVC has the “make it or break it” effect on the application progression.
In the event an RVC is proposed to address a GAC Early Warning, it doesn’t have the same effect. In other words, if it is rejected by ICANN, the application should still be able to proceed after removing the proposed RVC. However, the GAC may separately decide whether/how to continue pursuing the concerns raised (e.g., whether to issue a GAC Advice). If a GAC Advice says an application cannot proceed *unless* agreement is reached on a proposed RVC that is approved by ICANN, then the “exception” situation is triggered.
We attempt to cover this point in Section 3.2.3 [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Gw927Aeo6ZHAf...> under the “general rule”, but if the IRT agrees that we need to further elaborate on the GAC Early Warning situation, we will consider revising the text to make it clearer.
Thank you!
Ariel
*From: *Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital> *Date: *Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 6:44 AM *To: *Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk> *Cc: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, Anne ICANN < anneicanngnso@gmail.com>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies
Hi All,
I wouldn’t go so far as to call them a precursor to GAC advice. There were many early warnings last time that did not result in GAC advice. That said taking account of an early warning and talking to the government(s) concerned would indeed be sensible.
Cheers,
CD
On 7 Jan 2025, at 09:53, Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
OFFICIAL
Ariel cc as above
Good morning to you and colleagues. Thanks to Anne for initiating this dialogue.
From what I recall back in 2012 Round the GAC Early Warnings were, in the main, a pre-cursor to GAC advice on the “names” identified of concern. You are of course right that an “early warning” has no “regulatory” effect but an effected applicant, one might think, would be perhaps wise to assess how the concern could be overcome by an RVC and even offer it ahead of GAC advice.
Best
Nigel
OFFICIAL
*From:* Ariel Liang via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Sent:* 06 January 2025 20:07 *To:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Cc:* subpro-irt@icann.org *Subject:* [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies
Hello Anne,
To our understanding, the GAC Advice and GAC Early Warning have significantly different ‘weight’, as the Board is required to consider a GAC Advice and act on it accordingly, but not for a GAC Early Warning (which can be issued by one or more GAC members, not by the entire GAC).
For example, if a GAC Early Warning flags certain concerns with an application, the applicant may actually do nothing, knowing the risk of a potential GAC Advice to the Board (which may or may not happen). The applicant has the option to propose an RVC after receiving the GAC Early Warning in order to reduce the risk, but in general the approval or rejection of such an RVC has no bearing on whether the application is able to proceed.
However, in the event the GAC, in its advice, advises the Board that an application cannot proceed unless agreement is reached on a proposed RVC that is approved by ICANN, then the applicant cannot ‘ignore’ the GAC Advice and the approval/rejection of a proposed RVC in response to such a GAC Advice will have bearing on the fate of the application. This is further elaborated in Section 3.4 [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1bWQejPrHG4Lhu...> of the “Community Input and Dispute Resolution” topic.
I hope I answered your question, Anne?
Best,
Ariel
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Monday, January 6, 2025 at 1:21 PM *To: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Cc: *"subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies
Thanks Ariel. A preliminary question: trying to understand the difference in 3.2.4 between a proposed RVC in response to GAC Advice versus a proposed RVC in response to GAC Early Warning?
Thank you,
Anne
\
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 12:02 PM Ariel Liang via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Happy New Year! Hope you all had some time to relax and feel rejuvenated after the holiday season!
During the IRT meeting on 9 January, we are expected to discuss the proposed AGB language for Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies. We are circulating the draft language [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Gw927Aeo6ZHAf...> to facilitate your preview.
Kindly note that we plan to focus discussion on Section 3 RVCs in the Google Doc. To facilitate discussion, we produced a redline document <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/412876859/Proposed%20AGB%20...> to showcase the changes from the previous version presented to the IRT on 15 Oct 2024. All the relevant documents are uploaded on the meeting wiki page here <https://community.icann.org/x/OwCcG>.
Thank you for your preview, and speak to you soon next week!
Best Regards,
Ariel
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thanks for the clarification, Anne. We will consider how to revise the language to make it clearer to readers. Appreciate the extra feedback. Best Regards, Ariel From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, January 9, 2025 at 3:25 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>, Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org>, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies Hi Ariel, If the language on page 8 had been clearer to specify that an RVC can be developed in response to a GAC Early Warning and that RCE would result, I would not have had to repeat this comment during the call today and you would have gotten through more of your draft text. Please try to look at all draft language again from the perspective of a new applicant who does not "know the ropes". As many commented in chat, clarity for new applicants is very important. I still say that RCE in response to a GAC Early Warning could delay other processes and in fact, an Applicant might want to delay the process to avoid additional fees so please consider that possibility. As Susan said, it may not belong in the Exceptions paragraph, but it could be covered on page 8. Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 12:00 PM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> wrote: If we don't say on page 8 that an applicant can develop an RVC in response to an EArly Warning, that will not be clear to new applicants. Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 11:59 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Anne, Happy to discuss further, but the reason that the GAC Early Warning is not being featured like the GAC Advice is because a proposed RVC in response to the GAC Early Warning is not regarded as an “exception” described under Section 3.2.4. It falls under the general rule as described under Section 3.2.3. On page 8 of the google doc, we have this sentence: “…An RVC could also institute safeguards that may help overcome a third-party concern with an applied-for gTLD string or application, such as Objections, GAC Early Warnings or Advice, application comments, or other issues that might otherwise negatively impact the application’s evaluation process. See [Section xx - Application Change Requests] and [Section xx - Community Input] for further details about these topics.” If you have further questions, happy to address during the call. Best, Ariel From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, January 9, 2025 at 1:50 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Cc: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital>, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk<mailto:nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk>>, "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies Thanks Ariel. I guess what I'm getting at is that Applicant could file a new or amended RVC in response to an early warning. The section on page 8 just says it's a good idea to engage with the GAC. The section on new or amended RVCs in 3.4 only discusses such a process in relation to GAC Advice, but not in relation to Early Warning. So it does not appear that the language accurately reflects a process whereby an RVC is developed in response to a GAC Early Warning and that was clearly contemplated by the Clarifying Language issued by the Council when it advised the Board that the intention was to provide for RVCs only as permitted by the ByLaws. It therefore looks as though the language re Early Warning needs to be amended to contemplate this fact situation. And it appears 3.4 may also need revision to reflect this. Others on the call may have a different point of view, but I think some have acknowledged that an RVC can be developed in response to an Early Warning. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 10:03 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Yes, you may find the reference on pages 8 and 11 of the draft text on google doc. Best, Ariel From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, January 8, 2025 at 11:49 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Cc: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital>, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk<mailto:nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk>>, "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies Thanks Ariel. Does the term, GAC Early Warning, actually appear in this text? Can you point me to that reference? Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 9:22 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks for the further elaboration on your thought process, Anne. Since the RVC topic will be discussed tomorrow during the IRT meeting, it would be great to hear other’s thoughts on this. In my mind, an RVC in response to a GAC Early Warning would be very similar to an RVC in response to an application comment, in the sense that the RVC may be proposed, as an Application Change Request, to address a concern raised by a third party. There is no other separate process being brought into the mix in those situations, unlike the ones relating to GAC Advice and Objection, which would involve the Board and the DRSP respectively. Would be helpful to understand what specific delay would happen in the case of GAC Early Warning. Thank you, and speak soon tomorrow. Best, Ariel From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 10:16 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Cc: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital>, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk<mailto:nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk>>, "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies Thanks Ariel. The reason I think that this fact situation could present a possible time delay is because every RVC must undergo an Evaluation. Thus, it strikes me that there is potential delay wherever the RVC is not a pre-approved "Safeguard". Whether or not to proceed in the face of an Early Warning without negotiating an RVC with the GAC country that issues it is of course, a business risk decision to be made by the Applicant. Nevertheless, it seems to me that proposing an RVC in response to a GAC Early Warning could involve some delay. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 7:44 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks all for the discussion on this topic! Agree that it would be sensible that the applicant shouldn’t “ignore” a GAC Early Warning and tries to address it in order to avoid the risk of a GAC Advice. To answer Anne’s follow up question regarding whether a proposed RVC to address GAC Early Warning should be included in the “Exceptions” section, we don’t believe this would be the case. Proposed RVCs to overcome GAC Advice and Objection are “special”, because in those situations, a separate process is brought into the mix (e.g., Board consideration of the GAC Advice, Objection process), and the proposed RVC has the “make it or break it” effect on the application progression. In the event an RVC is proposed to address a GAC Early Warning, it doesn’t have the same effect. In other words, if it is rejected by ICANN, the application should still be able to proceed after removing the proposed RVC. However, the GAC may separately decide whether/how to continue pursuing the concerns raised (e.g., whether to issue a GAC Advice). If a GAC Advice says an application cannot proceed unless agreement is reached on a proposed RVC that is approved by ICANN, then the “exception” situation is triggered. We attempt to cover this point in Section 3.2.3 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Gw927Aeo6ZHAf...> under the “general rule”, but if the IRT agrees that we need to further elaborate on the GAC Early Warning situation, we will consider revising the text to make it clearer. Thank you! Ariel From: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital> Date: Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 6:44 AM To: Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk<mailto:nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk>> Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>>, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>>, "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies Hi All, I wouldn’t go so far as to call them a precursor to GAC advice. There were many early warnings last time that did not result in GAC advice. That said taking account of an early warning and talking to the government(s) concerned would indeed be sensible. Cheers, CD On 7 Jan 2025, at 09:53, Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: OFFICIAL Ariel cc as above Good morning to you and colleagues. Thanks to Anne for initiating this dialogue. From what I recall back in 2012 Round the GAC Early Warnings were, in the main, a pre-cursor to GAC advice on the “names” identified of concern. You are of course right that an “early warning” has no “regulatory” effect but an effected applicant, one might think, would be perhaps wise to assess how the concern could be overcome by an RVC and even offer it ahead of GAC advice. Best Nigel OFFICIAL From: Ariel Liang via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Sent: 06 January 2025 20:07 To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies Hello Anne, To our understanding, the GAC Advice and GAC Early Warning have significantly different ‘weight’, as the Board is required to consider a GAC Advice and act on it accordingly, but not for a GAC Early Warning (which can be issued by one or more GAC members, not by the entire GAC). For example, if a GAC Early Warning flags certain concerns with an application, the applicant may actually do nothing, knowing the risk of a potential GAC Advice to the Board (which may or may not happen). The applicant has the option to propose an RVC after receiving the GAC Early Warning in order to reduce the risk, but in general the approval or rejection of such an RVC has no bearing on whether the application is able to proceed. However, in the event the GAC, in its advice, advises the Board that an application cannot proceed unless agreement is reached on a proposed RVC that is approved by ICANN, then the applicant cannot ‘ignore’ the GAC Advice and the approval/rejection of a proposed RVC in response to such a GAC Advice will have bearing on the fate of the application. This is further elaborated in Section 3.4 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1bWQejPrHG4Lhu...> of the “Community Input and Dispute Resolution” topic. I hope I answered your question, Anne? Best, Ariel From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, January 6, 2025 at 1:21 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Cc: "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies Thanks Ariel. A preliminary question: trying to understand the difference in 3.2.4 between a proposed RVC in response to GAC Advice versus a proposed RVC in response to GAC Early Warning? Thank you, Anne \ Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 12:02 PM Ariel Liang via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Happy New Year! Hope you all had some time to relax and feel rejuvenated after the holiday season! During the IRT meeting on 9 January, we are expected to discuss the proposed AGB language for Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies. We are circulating the draft language [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Gw927Aeo6ZHAf...> to facilitate your preview. Kindly note that we plan to focus discussion on Section 3 RVCs in the Google Doc. To facilitate discussion, we produced a redline document<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/412876859/Proposed%20AGB%20...> to showcase the changes from the previous version presented to the IRT on 15 Oct 2024. All the relevant documents are uploaded on the meeting wiki page here<https://community.icann.org/x/OwCcG>. Thank you for your preview, and speak to you soon next week! Best Regards, Ariel _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Many thanks. It's a difficult subject generally and I understand that some are not at all happy about the Early Warning process. Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 1:48 PM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, Anne. We will consider how to revise the language to make it clearer to readers. Appreciate the extra feedback.
Best Regards,
Ariel
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Thursday, January 9, 2025 at 3:25 PM *To: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, Lars Hoffmann < lars.hoffmann@icann.org>, Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org>, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies
Hi Ariel,
If the language on page 8 had been clearer to specify that an RVC can be developed in response to a GAC Early Warning and that RCE would result, I would not have had to repeat this comment during the call today and you would have gotten through more of your draft text.
Please try to look at all draft language again from the perspective of a new applicant who does not "know the ropes". As many commented in chat, clarity for new applicants is very important.
I still say that RCE in response to a GAC Early Warning could delay other processes and in fact, an Applicant might want to delay the process to avoid additional fees so please consider that possibility. As Susan said, it may not belong in the Exceptions paragraph, but it could be covered on page 8.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 12:00 PM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:
If we don't say on page 8 that an applicant can develop an RVC in response to an EArly Warning, that will not be clear to new applicants.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 11:59 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Anne,
Happy to discuss further, but the reason that the GAC Early Warning is not being featured like the GAC Advice is because a proposed RVC in response to the GAC Early Warning is not regarded as an “exception” described under Section 3.2.4. It falls under the general rule as described under Section 3.2.3. On page 8 of the google doc, we have this sentence:
*“…An RVC could also institute safeguards that may help overcome a third-party concern with an applied-for gTLD string or application, such as Objections, GAC Early Warnings or Advice, application comments, or other issues that might otherwise negatively impact the application’s evaluation process. See [Section xx - Application Change Requests] and [Section xx - Community Input] for further details about these topics.”*
If you have further questions, happy to address during the call.
Best,
Ariel
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Thursday, January 9, 2025 at 1:50 PM *To: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Cc: *Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital>, Nigel Hickson < nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies
Thanks Ariel. I guess what I'm getting at is that Applicant could file a new or amended RVC in response to an early warning. The section on page 8 just says it's a good idea to engage with the GAC. The section on new or amended RVCs in 3.4 only discusses such a process in relation to GAC Advice, but not in relation to Early Warning.
So it does not appear that the language accurately reflects a process whereby an RVC is developed in response to a GAC Early Warning and that was clearly contemplated by the Clarifying Language issued by the Council when it advised the Board that the intention was to provide for RVCs only as permitted by the ByLaws.
It therefore looks as though the language re Early Warning needs to be amended to contemplate this fact situation. And it appears 3.4 may also need revision to reflect this. Others on the call may have a different point of view, but I think some have acknowledged that an RVC can be developed in response to an Early Warning.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 10:03 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Yes, you may find the reference on pages 8 and 11 of the draft text on google doc.
Best,
Ariel
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, January 8, 2025 at 11:49 AM *To: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Cc: *Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital>, Nigel Hickson < nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies
Thanks Ariel. Does the term, GAC Early Warning, actually appear in this text? Can you point me to that reference?
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 9:22 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks for the further elaboration on your thought process, Anne.
Since the RVC topic will be discussed tomorrow during the IRT meeting, it would be great to hear other’s thoughts on this. In my mind, an RVC in response to a GAC Early Warning would be very similar to an RVC in response to an application comment, in the sense that the RVC may be proposed, as an Application Change Request, to address a concern raised by a third party. There is no other separate process being brought into the mix in those situations, unlike the ones relating to GAC Advice and Objection, which would involve the Board and the DRSP respectively. Would be helpful to understand what specific delay would happen in the case of GAC Early Warning.
Thank you, and speak soon tomorrow.
Best,
Ariel
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 10:16 PM *To: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Cc: *Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital>, Nigel Hickson < nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies
Thanks Ariel. The reason I think that this fact situation could present a possible time delay is because every RVC must undergo an Evaluation. Thus, it strikes me that there is potential delay wherever the RVC is not a pre-approved "Safeguard".
Whether or not to proceed in the face of an Early Warning without negotiating an RVC with the GAC country that issues it is of course, a business risk decision to be made by the Applicant. Nevertheless, it seems to me that proposing an RVC in response to a GAC Early Warning could involve some delay.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 7:44 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks all for the discussion on this topic! Agree that it would be sensible that the applicant shouldn’t “ignore” a GAC Early Warning and tries to address it in order to avoid the risk of a GAC Advice.
To answer Anne’s follow up question regarding whether a proposed RVC to address GAC Early Warning should be included in the “Exceptions” section, we don’t believe this would be the case.
Proposed RVCs to overcome GAC Advice and Objection are “special”, because in those situations, a separate process is brought into the mix (e.g., Board consideration of the GAC Advice, Objection process), and the proposed RVC has the “make it or break it” effect on the application progression.
In the event an RVC is proposed to address a GAC Early Warning, it doesn’t have the same effect. In other words, if it is rejected by ICANN, the application should still be able to proceed after removing the proposed RVC. However, the GAC may separately decide whether/how to continue pursuing the concerns raised (e.g., whether to issue a GAC Advice). If a GAC Advice says an application cannot proceed *unless* agreement is reached on a proposed RVC that is approved by ICANN, then the “exception” situation is triggered.
We attempt to cover this point in Section 3.2.3 [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Gw927Aeo6ZHAf...> under the “general rule”, but if the IRT agrees that we need to further elaborate on the GAC Early Warning situation, we will consider revising the text to make it clearer.
Thank you!
Ariel
*From: *Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital> *Date: *Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 6:44 AM *To: *Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk> *Cc: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, Anne ICANN < anneicanngnso@gmail.com>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies
Hi All,
I wouldn’t go so far as to call them a precursor to GAC advice. There were many early warnings last time that did not result in GAC advice. That said taking account of an early warning and talking to the government(s) concerned would indeed be sensible.
Cheers,
CD
On 7 Jan 2025, at 09:53, Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
OFFICIAL
Ariel cc as above
Good morning to you and colleagues. Thanks to Anne for initiating this dialogue.
From what I recall back in 2012 Round the GAC Early Warnings were, in the main, a pre-cursor to GAC advice on the “names” identified of concern. You are of course right that an “early warning” has no “regulatory” effect but an effected applicant, one might think, would be perhaps wise to assess how the concern could be overcome by an RVC and even offer it ahead of GAC advice.
Best
Nigel
OFFICIAL
*From:* Ariel Liang via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Sent:* 06 January 2025 20:07 *To:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Cc:* subpro-irt@icann.org *Subject:* [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies
Hello Anne,
To our understanding, the GAC Advice and GAC Early Warning have significantly different ‘weight’, as the Board is required to consider a GAC Advice and act on it accordingly, but not for a GAC Early Warning (which can be issued by one or more GAC members, not by the entire GAC).
For example, if a GAC Early Warning flags certain concerns with an application, the applicant may actually do nothing, knowing the risk of a potential GAC Advice to the Board (which may or may not happen). The applicant has the option to propose an RVC after receiving the GAC Early Warning in order to reduce the risk, but in general the approval or rejection of such an RVC has no bearing on whether the application is able to proceed.
However, in the event the GAC, in its advice, advises the Board that an application cannot proceed unless agreement is reached on a proposed RVC that is approved by ICANN, then the applicant cannot ‘ignore’ the GAC Advice and the approval/rejection of a proposed RVC in response to such a GAC Advice will have bearing on the fate of the application. This is further elaborated in Section 3.4 [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1bWQejPrHG4Lhu...> of the “Community Input and Dispute Resolution” topic.
I hope I answered your question, Anne?
Best,
Ariel
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Monday, January 6, 2025 at 1:21 PM *To: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Cc: *"subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies
Thanks Ariel. A preliminary question: trying to understand the difference in 3.2.4 between a proposed RVC in response to GAC Advice versus a proposed RVC in response to GAC Early Warning?
Thank you,
Anne
\
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 12:02 PM Ariel Liang via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Happy New Year! Hope you all had some time to relax and feel rejuvenated after the holiday season!
During the IRT meeting on 9 January, we are expected to discuss the proposed AGB language for Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies. We are circulating the draft language [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Gw927Aeo6ZHAf...> to facilitate your preview.
Kindly note that we plan to focus discussion on Section 3 RVCs in the Google Doc. To facilitate discussion, we produced a redline document <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/412876859/Proposed%20AGB%20...> to showcase the changes from the previous version presented to the IRT on 15 Oct 2024. All the relevant documents are uploaded on the meeting wiki page here <https://community.icann.org/x/OwCcG>.
Thank you for your preview, and speak to you soon next week!
Best Regards,
Ariel
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
I believe removing GAC Early Warning was considered in the WG, but ended up not being the decision. As long as there is GAC Early Warning, it should be reflected in the application process, including RVCs. Rubens
Em 10 de jan. de 2025, à(s) 18:54, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> escreveu:
Many thanks. It's a difficult subject generally and I understand that some are not at all happy about the Early Warning process.
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 1:48 PM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, Anne. We will consider how to revise the language to make it clearer to readers. Appreciate the extra feedback.
Best Regards,
Ariel
From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, January 9, 2025 at 3:25 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org <mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>>, Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org <mailto:elisa.busetto@icann.org>>, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies
Hi Ariel,
If the language on page 8 had been clearer to specify that an RVC can be developed in response to a GAC Early Warning and that RCE would result, I would not have had to repeat this comment during the call today and you would have gotten through more of your draft text.
Please try to look at all draft language again from the perspective of a new applicant who does not "know the ropes". As many commented in chat, clarity for new applicants is very important.
I still say that RCE in response to a GAC Early Warning could delay other processes and in fact, an Applicant might want to delay the process to avoid additional fees so please consider that possibility. As Susan said, it may not belong in the Exceptions paragraph, but it could be covered on page 8.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 12:00 PM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> wrote:
If we don't say on page 8 that an applicant can develop an RVC in response to an EArly Warning, that will not be clear to new applicants.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 11:59 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote:
Hi Anne,
Happy to discuss further, but the reason that the GAC Early Warning is not being featured like the GAC Advice is because a proposed RVC in response to the GAC Early Warning is not regarded as an “exception” described under Section 3.2.4. It falls under the general rule as described under Section 3.2.3. On page 8 of the google doc, we have this sentence:
“…An RVC could also institute safeguards that may help overcome a third-party concern with an applied-for gTLD string or application, such as Objections, GAC Early Warnings or Advice, application comments, or other issues that might otherwise negatively impact the application’s evaluation process. See [Section xx - Application Change Requests] and [Section xx - Community Input] for further details about these topics.”
If you have further questions, happy to address during the call.
Best,
Ariel
From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, January 9, 2025 at 1:50 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Cc: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital>, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk <mailto:nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk>>, "subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies
Thanks Ariel. I guess what I'm getting at is that Applicant could file a new or amended RVC in response to an early warning. The section on page 8 just says it's a good idea to engage with the GAC. The section on new or amended RVCs in 3.4 only discusses such a process in relation to GAC Advice, but not in relation to Early Warning.
So it does not appear that the language accurately reflects a process whereby an RVC is developed in response to a GAC Early Warning and that was clearly contemplated by the Clarifying Language issued by the Council when it advised the Board that the intention was to provide for RVCs only as permitted by the ByLaws.
It therefore looks as though the language re Early Warning needs to be amended to contemplate this fact situation. And it appears 3.4 may also need revision to reflect this. Others on the call may have a different point of view, but I think some have acknowledged that an RVC can be developed in response to an Early Warning.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 10:03 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote:
Yes, you may find the reference on pages 8 and 11 of the draft text on google doc.
Best,
Ariel
From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, January 8, 2025 at 11:49 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Cc: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital>, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk <mailto:nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk>>, "subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies
Thanks Ariel. Does the term, GAC Early Warning, actually appear in this text? Can you point me to that reference?
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 9:22 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote:
Thanks for the further elaboration on your thought process, Anne.
Since the RVC topic will be discussed tomorrow during the IRT meeting, it would be great to hear other’s thoughts on this. In my mind, an RVC in response to a GAC Early Warning would be very similar to an RVC in response to an application comment, in the sense that the RVC may be proposed, as an Application Change Request, to address a concern raised by a third party. There is no other separate process being brought into the mix in those situations, unlike the ones relating to GAC Advice and Objection, which would involve the Board and the DRSP respectively. Would be helpful to understand what specific delay would happen in the case of GAC Early Warning.
Thank you, and speak soon tomorrow.
Best,
Ariel
From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 10:16 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Cc: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital>, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk <mailto:nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk>>, "subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies
Thanks Ariel. The reason I think that this fact situation could present a possible time delay is because every RVC must undergo an Evaluation. Thus, it strikes me that there is potential delay wherever the RVC is not a pre-approved "Safeguard".
Whether or not to proceed in the face of an Early Warning without negotiating an RVC with the GAC country that issues it is of course, a business risk decision to be made by the Applicant. Nevertheless, it seems to me that proposing an RVC in response to a GAC Early Warning could involve some delay.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 7:44 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote:
Thanks all for the discussion on this topic! Agree that it would be sensible that the applicant shouldn’t “ignore” a GAC Early Warning and tries to address it in order to avoid the risk of a GAC Advice.
To answer Anne’s follow up question regarding whether a proposed RVC to address GAC Early Warning should be included in the “Exceptions” section, we don’t believe this would be the case.
Proposed RVCs to overcome GAC Advice and Objection are “special”, because in those situations, a separate process is brought into the mix (e.g., Board consideration of the GAC Advice, Objection process), and the proposed RVC has the “make it or break it” effect on the application progression.
In the event an RVC is proposed to address a GAC Early Warning, it doesn’t have the same effect. In other words, if it is rejected by ICANN, the application should still be able to proceed after removing the proposed RVC. However, the GAC may separately decide whether/how to continue pursuing the concerns raised (e.g., whether to issue a GAC Advice). If a GAC Advice says an application cannot proceed unless agreement is reached on a proposed RVC that is approved by ICANN, then the “exception” situation is triggered.
We attempt to cover this point in Section 3.2.3 [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Gw927Aeo6ZHAf...> under the “general rule”, but if the IRT agrees that we need to further elaborate on the GAC Early Warning situation, we will consider revising the text to make it clearer.
Thank you!
Ariel
From: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital> Date: Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 6:44 AM To: Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk <mailto:nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk>> Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>>, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>>, "subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies
Hi All,
I wouldn’t go so far as to call them a precursor to GAC advice. There were many early warnings last time that did not result in GAC advice. That said taking account of an early warning and talking to the government(s) concerned would indeed be sensible.
Cheers,
CD
On 7 Jan 2025, at 09:53, Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote:
OFFICIAL
Ariel cc as above
Good morning to you and colleagues. Thanks to Anne for initiating this dialogue.
From what I recall back in 2012 Round the GAC Early Warnings were, in the main, a pre-cursor to GAC advice on the “names” identified of concern. You are of course right that an “early warning” has no “regulatory” effect but an effected applicant, one might think, would be perhaps wise to assess how the concern could be overcome by an RVC and even offer it ahead of GAC advice.
Best
Nigel
OFFICIAL
From: Ariel Liang via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Sent: 06 January 2025 20:07 To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies
Hello Anne,
To our understanding, the GAC Advice and GAC Early Warning have significantly different ‘weight’, as the Board is required to consider a GAC Advice and act on it accordingly, but not for a GAC Early Warning (which can be issued by one or more GAC members, not by the entire GAC).
For example, if a GAC Early Warning flags certain concerns with an application, the applicant may actually do nothing, knowing the risk of a potential GAC Advice to the Board (which may or may not happen). The applicant has the option to propose an RVC after receiving the GAC Early Warning in order to reduce the risk, but in general the approval or rejection of such an RVC has no bearing on whether the application is able to proceed.
However, in the event the GAC, in its advice, advises the Board that an application cannot proceed unless agreement is reached on a proposed RVC that is approved by ICANN, then the applicant cannot ‘ignore’ the GAC Advice and the approval/rejection of a proposed RVC in response to such a GAC Advice will have bearing on the fate of the application. This is further elaborated in Section 3.4 [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1bWQejPrHG4Lhu...> of the “Community Input and Dispute Resolution” topic.
I hope I answered your question, Anne?
Best,
Ariel
From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, January 6, 2025 at 1:21 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Cc: "subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Proposed AGB Language: Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies
Thanks Ariel. A preliminary question: trying to understand the difference in 3.2.4 between a proposed RVC in response to GAC Advice versus a proposed RVC in response to GAC Early Warning?
Thank you,
Anne
\
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 12:02 PM Ariel Liang via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear All,
Happy New Year! Hope you all had some time to relax and feel rejuvenated after the holiday season!
During the IRT meeting on 9 January, we are expected to discuss the proposed AGB language for Topic 9 PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies. We are circulating the draft language [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Gw927Aeo6ZHAf...> to facilitate your preview.
Kindly note that we plan to focus discussion on Section 3 RVCs in the Google Doc. To facilitate discussion, we produced a redline document <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/412876859/Proposed%20AGB%20...> to showcase the changes from the previous version presented to the IRT on 15 Oct 2024. All the relevant documents are uploaded on the meeting wiki page here <https://community.icann.org/x/OwCcG>.
Thank you for your preview, and speak to you soon next week!
Best Regards,
Ariel
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt-leave@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt-leave@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (3)
-
Anne ICANN -
Ariel Liang -
Rubens Kuhl