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

Steve Chan steve.chan at icann.org
Thu Jun 4 18:53:50 UTC 2015 

Dear Mike,

I¹ve attempted to integrate your suggestions into the language. Please let
me know if you are able to agree to the changes. If not, specific text edits
are certainly welcome.

> * Reserved names list: Review the composition of the reserved names list to
> determine if additions, modifications, or subtractions are needed (e.g.,
> single letter, two letters, special characters, etc.). Evaluate if the
> implementation matched expectations (e.g., recommendations of the Reserved
> Names Working Group). Review whether geographic names requirements are
> appropriate. 
>> * 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.

Best,
Steve

From:  Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com>
Date:  Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 11:04 AM
To:  Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>
Cc:  Lars HOFFMANN <Lars.hoffmann at icann.org>, Phil Buckingham
<phil at dotadvice.co.uk>, Donna Austin <Donna.Austin at ariservices.com>,
"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

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 Mike¹s  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] 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 <tel:%2B1.415.738.8087>
> 
> 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
> wasn¹t sure if there was overlap into the work of this group.
>  
> My concern is that the CCWG is restricting it¹s 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 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 <tel:%2B1%20310%20890%209655>
> P +61 3 9866 3710 <tel:%2B61%203%209866%203710>
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150604/5fefc96a/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/20150604/5fefc96a/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4534 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/attachments/20150604/5fefc96a/smime-0001.p7s>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list