[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] Sub-Pro WT3 Position on Limited Public Interest Objections

[Rubens Kuhl]

Paul,

I would add that is limited to LPI and limited to the policy guidance, not to implementation oversight... so the scope Karen mentioned is very thin indeed. 

BTW, I would add that I don't think AGB suits purpose, currently; it has lots of rationales instead of focusing on what the applicant can do, can't do, needs to do... I understand the requirement for rationales so ICANN can adapt if something comes about, but that could be part of an unabridged AGB, while applicants could read the abridged version that has the What's instead of the What's and Why's. 



Rubens




> Em 27 de out de 2016, à(s) 14:06:000, Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com> escreveu:
> 
> Hi Kiran,
> 
> Thanks for the clarification and context.  If this is limited only the
> "limited public interest objections" than I guess I am not as concerned.
> Apologies for being unduly alarmed!
> 
> Best,
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kiran Malancharuvil [mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 10:57 AM
> To: Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com>
> Cc: Karen Day <Karen.Day at sas.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] Sub-Pro WT3 Position on Limited Public
> Interest Objections
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> It seems like the very narrow scope of this email is "cnot the AGB as a
> whole, and Karen's email should be taken as referring to such.
> 
> Perhaps I'm wrong but your email seems slightly alarmist if that's the case.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Kiran
> 
> Kiran Malancharuvil
> Policy Counselor
> MarkMonitor
> 415-419-9138 (m)
> 
> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
> 
> On Oct 27, 2016, at 8:55 AM, Paul McGrady
> <policy at paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>> wrote:
> 
> Karen,
> 
> This is what I was worried about.  When you say the AGB remains "in good
> order, functioned as envisioned and within scope, and are sufficient for
> subsequent procedures" it gives the incorrect impression that we have gone
> through the Guidebook and all of it is "remain in good order, functioned as
> envisioned and within scope, and are sufficient for subsequent procedures."
> This is not even vaguely the case.  As we discussed on a call, there was
> agreement that the current format of the AGB seems suited to its purpose,
> but we reached no conclusions on all of the content.  I think  this
> distinction is vital and I hope that the distinction appears in any summary
> of our work to date.  Thanks!
> 
> Best,
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> From:
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces at ica
> nn.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Karen
> Day
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 9:09 AM
> To: 'gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 at icann.org>'
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 at icann.org>>
> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] Sub-Pro WT3 Position on Limited Public
> Interest Objections
> Importance: High
> 
> Dear WT3 members:
> 
> Based on our discussions and feedback thus far, I'd like to seek
> confirmation of my understanding that, we are approaching consensus that the
> existing policy and AGB (see attached for the specific language) remain in
> good order, functioned as envisioned and within scope, and are sufficient
> for subsequent procedures.
> 
> I do note that we do have concerns about the high cost of these objections,
> whether or not the Panel implemented the "quick look" procedure
> appropriately, and the role of the Independent Objector.  These items will
> be specifically covered later in our work flow and the outcomes applied
> accordingly.
> 
> Please let us know whether you are in agreement, you disagree (stating why)
> or whether you would prefer to reserve judgement until further work is done
> (stating what work you'd like to see).  Silence will be taken as agreement.
> :)
> 
> Thanks for your participation and I wish safe travels to those of you going
> to Hyderabad.
> 
> Best regards,
> Karen
> ____________________________
> Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP
> Registry Operations Manager
> Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ? Mobile: + 1 919-599-4356 ?
> karen.day at sas.com<mailto:karen.day at sas.com>
> SAS Institute Inc.? SAS Campus Drive ? Cary, NC 27513 USA
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3