[Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Proposed Agenda

Wed Apr 1 15:47:11 UTC 2015

All,

Apologies for missing yesterday's call.  I've set out below my comments on the matrix.  I haven't had a chance to review any recent postings so these may be duplicative.

1.        I suggest that, to the extent possible, we break out the notes regarding Rec. 3 so that they correspond to the relevant recommendation.   For example, given that WIPO charged $10K for Legal Rights Objections and ICC charged $90,000+ for Community Objections, it seems likely to me that the comment "prohibitively high fees to access" was made regarding Recs. 6 and/or 20.  Where we're not sure, though, I think it would be helpful to repeat the notes and indicate that we have done so because the comments were not specifically attributed.

2.       Following on #1, the comments regarding the Independent Objector are properly attributed to Recs. 6 and 20 (not 3) because he was limited to filing objections based on those two recs.

3.       For all objections other than Legal Rights (Rec. 3):  Were the objection criteria sufficiently detailed and, if not, what additional criteria and detail can be provided to the DRPs and Panels?

4.       For recs 6 & 20:  What process should be used to address an Independent Objector's alleged conflict of interest without having to pursue the objection process to conclusion?  (Background note:  As many know, I wrote - on behalf of then-client Patagonia - a lengthy letter to ICANN setting out the Independent Objector's conflict of interest.  ICANN took the position that it could do nothing and it was up to the DRP to decide whether to even consider the asserted conflict.   The DRP Panel that decided the .AMAZON Community Objection found that the IO had a conflict of interest that should have prevented him from filing the objection - and then dismissed the objection on the merits.  To get to that point, Amazon had to pay the DRP and legal fees for an objection that never should have been allowed to proceed.  No applicant should have to repeat those circumstances.)

5.       Rec 8:  If the COI requirement is maintained, what steps can be taken to decrease the burden on applicants to comply with the requirement?  (Background note:  Because some of the COI requirements set forth by ICANN had no nexus to generally accepted letter of credit practices, meeting the requirement was very disproportionately time consuming.)

6.       Rec. 12:  Does anyone on the DG have first-hand knowledge of the referenced "spurious activities"?  If not, we should be careful in our characterization (e.g., alleged spurious activities).

7.       IG C:  Was the application change process sufficiently transparent and, if not, how should it be changed?

8.       IG P :  Were these criteria sufficiently detailed and, if not, how should they be changed?

K

From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 12:20 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Proposed Agenda

Dear DG Members,

Apologies for the confusion inducing typo, but the meeting is actually at 14:00 UTC.

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - Monday 30 March at 14:00 UTC

  1.  Roll Call / Updates to SOIs
  2.  Agreement on Final Deliverables

     *   Last Call for comments for Executive Summary and Matrix
     *   Discussion about Charter

  1.  Project Timing
  2.  Confirm next meeting
Best,
Steve

From: Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>
Date: Friday, March 27, 2015 at 11:39 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org>>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Proposed Agenda

Dear DG Members,

Please find the proposed agenda for Monday's call. I am re-distributing the latest versions of the issues/recommendations matrix and the executive summary. While it was proposed by Jeff on the 16 March call that there be a 31 March deadline for comment on these two documents, it would be helpful if input is received prior to the call on Monday, so as to allow for discussion during the call.

In addition, in support of item three on the agenda, I am providing a draft timeline document that illustrates one path forward to the completion of this group's work, a possible issue report request, and initiation of possible PDP(s).

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - Monday 30 March at 15:00 UTC

  1.  Roll Call / Updates to SOIs
  2.  Agreement on Final Deliverables

     *   Last Call for comments for Executive Summary and Matrix
     *   Discussion about Charter

  1.  Project Timing
  2.  Confirm next meeting
Best,

Steven Chan
Sr. Policy Manager

ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
steve.chan at icann.org
<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>
direct: +1.310.301.3886
mobile: +1.310.339.4410
tel: +1.310.301.5800
fax: +1.310.823.8649
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/attachments/20150401/ddc3b4b8/attachment.html>