[Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant

Wed Jun 3 07:43:18 UTC 2015

Dear Donna,

Thank you for your note. There is currently a Cross Community Working Group
on the Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains (see here
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48346463> )
working on at least part of this issue. You might recall that Heather
provided an update to the GNSO Council as the Group¹s co-Chair during the
last Council call (transcript here
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-21may15-en.pdf> ). To
assure you, and others, the Group is very much aware of the GAC¹s work and
is trying to coordinate their respective  efforts to avoid a situation where
the GAC¹s potential future advise on geographic names conflicts with
anything the CWG is producing. Please note that the CWG is meeting bi-weekly
and the number of GNSO members is not as prominent as it could be  - as also
pointed out by Heather.

In addition, Heather will send out a call to the GNSO Council to provide
informal feedback on the CWG¹s work, including the potential overlap with
the GAC¹s work later today; any feedback you  and others  can provide will
be most welcome in the CWG¹s discussions.

Many thanks and best wishes,
Lars

From:  Donna Austin <Donna.Austin at ariservices.com>
Date:  Wednesday, 3 June 2015 01:49
To:  Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>, "<gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org>"
<gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by
previous applicant

Steve, All

I have another question‹sorry

As we all know the GAC has a working group on Geographic Names, which seems
to be intent on expanding the definition to include potentially thousands of
strings. The AGB had a moratorium on the ability to apply for
country/territory names at the top level in the first round.

Is it the intention of the DG that this be picked up as part of the next
round PDP, or perhaps dealt with as a distinct and separate issue elsewhere.

Apologies if this has been covered previously and I missed it.

Thanks,

Donna

DONNA AUSTIN
Policy and Industry Affairs Manager

ARI REGISTRY SERVICES
Melbourne|Los Angeles
P +1 310 890 9655
P +61 3 9866 3710
E donna.austin at ariservices.com <mailto:donna.austin at ariservices.com>
W www.ariservices.com <http://www.ariservices.com/>

Follow us on Twitter <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>

The information contained in this communication is intended for the named
recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally
privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended
recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance
on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all
copies from your system and notify us immediately.

From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan
Sent: Monday, 1 June 2015 3:56 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by
previous applicant

All,

I have made the following updates to the draft charter:
* Incorporated the suggestion from Donna Austin from 27 May
* Made the change suggested by Philip Sheppard and the BRG, although I made
it far more general because as Philip noted, the set of circumstances
described would not be limited to just .brands.
* Regarding the comments from Thomas Lowenhaupt, I did not make a change in
the charter, but instead made a change in the matrix, where I included a
link to Thomas¹ Wiki post about Informed Consent, so that it can be
considered in full by a possible WG.
The latest versions are attached and also available on the Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables. If there are
any disagreements with how the items have been captured, do of course let me
know and I¹ll be happy to update.

When we reach the finish line, I¹ll once again integrate the DG's three
documents into a single, clean document.

Best,

Steve

From: "philip at brandregistrygroup.org" <philip at brandregistrygroup.org>
Date: Monday, June 1, 2015 at 3:46 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by
previous applicant

Steve, Jeff, Bret,

a BRG member has made this suggestion which I think could be wider than just
.brands. Could you agree to add it to the Charter maybe in Section II, Group
1, around the bullet "Different TLD Types? Feel free to turn the text into
the style of the Charter.

Philip Sheppard

Director General

Brand Registry Group

www.brandregistrygroup.org <http://www.brandregistrygroup.org>

----------------------------

Application by a previous applicant

In case a (.brand) RO (from the first round) applies for another (.brand)
gTLD in the subsequent application window, certain requirements of the
application could be shortened, reduced of even omitted (e.g., financial,
technical, administrative, etc.) in case such RO is duly fulfilling its
current RA and running its (.brand) gTLD. It seems some time could be saved
during the application process if ICANN validates most of the the RO
information.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/attachments/20150603/4f6ffab9/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3765 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/attachments/20150603/4f6ffab9/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5091 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/attachments/20150603/4f6ffab9/smime-0001.p7s>