[Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant
Mike Rodenbaugh
mike at rodenbaugh.com
Thu Jun 4 19:07:29 UTC 2015
Thank Steve. Looks good to me.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org> wrote:
> Dear Mike,
>
> I’ve 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 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/20150604/667c50a1/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/20150604/667c50a1/image001-0001.png>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-dg
mailing list