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

Thu Jun 4 18:04:55 UTC 2015

Thanks Steve.  I don't agree that is a correct statement about the
interests supposedly to be balanced.  How about we just say "Review whether
geographic names requirements are appropriate"?  The rest is fine but
should also call out 2-letter codes specifically.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear Donna, Mike, Phil, Kiran, All,
>
> Noting all the points made by DG members, staff has drafted proposed
> additions to the draft charter text, which you will find below:
>
>
>    - Reserved names list: Review the composition of the reserved names
>    list to determine if additions, modifications, or subtractions are needed.
>    Evaluate if the implementation matched expectations (e.g., recommendations
>    of the Reserved Names Working Group). Review whether geographic names
>    requirements properly balance the needs of governments or public
>    authorities and potential applicants.
>       - *Note, the GNSO/ccNSO-chartered Cross Community Working Group on
>       the Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains is focused on a
>       policy framework for country and territory names and efforts should be made
>       to avoid duplicative work. In addition, capital city names, city names,
>       etc. may also warrant discussion.*
>
>
> We look forward to your review and comments.
>
> Best,
> Steve
>
>
> From: Lars HOFFMANN <Lars.hoffmann at icann.org>
> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 9:51 AM
> To: Phil Buckingham <phil at dotadvice.co.uk>, 'Mike Rodenbaugh' <
> mike at rodenbaugh.com>, 'Donna Austin' <Donna.Austin at ariservices.com>
> Cc: "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
>
> Dear Phil,
> Just a quick note that the CWG on the Use of Country and Territory Names
> is dealing with the issue of two-letter top-level domains and it is an
> issue on which the ccNSO participants have clear views. This is not
> to discourage inclusion of this in the Charter, just a call for caution to
> prevent the development of duplicate and potentially contradictory policies
> or policy frameworks (the latter being what the CWG is charted to produce).
> Very best. Lars
>
>
> From: Phil Buckingham <phil at dotadvice.co.uk>
> Date: Thursday, 4 June 2015 18:25
> To: 'Mike Rodenbaugh' <mike at rodenbaugh.com>, 'Donna Austin' <
> Donna.Austin at ariservices.com>
> Cc: "<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
>
> Hi Donna,
>
>
>
> I totally agree with your and Mike’s  comment.
>
>
>
> The issues surrounding  re Round 1 applicants  .spa ( as in a spa /
> Belgium city) .london (as in UK and Canada) .patagonia( as in country /
> clothing company) and of course .amazon  need to resolved / clarified prior
> to Round 2 .
>
>
>
> I would also include the issue surrounding two letter TLDs – which stopped
> the likes of Hewlett Packard applying for .HP
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> Phil Buckingham
>
> CEO, Dot Advice Limited
>
>
>
> *From:*gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh
> *Sent:* 04 June 2015 01:55
> *To:* Donna Austin
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application
> by previous applicant
>
>
>
> +1   I think there may be some value in the DG including in the Charter a
> review of the geographic names restrictions in the AGB.  Thanks Donna for
> raising the issue.
>
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
>
> RODENBAUGH LAW
>
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
>
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Donna Austin <
> Donna.Austin at ariservices.com> wrote:
>
> 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>
> *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
>
>
>
> [image: Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]*D**ONNA 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
> *W*  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
> <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 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" <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
>
>
>
> ----------------------------
>
>
>
> *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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/attachments/20150604/579ab232/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/20150604/579ab232/image001-0001.png>