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

Wed Jun 3 18:04:51 UTC 2015

Hi Lars

Thank you, I am aware of the work Heather and the CCWG are undertaking, but I wasn't sure if there was overlap into the work of this group.

My concern is that the CCWG is restricting it's considerations to country and territory names at the top level and the AGB had other requirements, for example relating to capital cities and continents. Therefore I think there may be some value in the DG including in the Charter a review of the geographic names or something along those lines.

Donna

From: Lars Hoffmann [mailto:lars.hoffmann at icann.org]
Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2015 12:43 AM
To: Donna Austin; Steve Chan; gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant

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 Group's 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 GAC's work and is trying to coordinate their respective  efforts to avoid a situation where the GAC's 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 CWG's work, including the potential overlap with the GAC's work later today; any feedback you - and others - can provide will be most welcome in the CWG's discussions.

Many thanks and best wishes,
Lars

From: Donna Austin <Donna.Austin at ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin at ariservices.com>>
Date: Wednesday, 3 June 2015 01:49
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>, "<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: 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

[Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]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> [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<mailto: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 Thomas' 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 I'll be happy to update.

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

Best,
Steve

From: "philip at brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:philip at brandregistrygroup.org>" <philip at brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:philip at brandregistrygroup.org>>
Date: Monday, June 1, 2015 at 3:46 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] 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/b558273f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3765 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/attachments/20150603/b558273f/image001-0001.png>