[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] Agenda - Subsequent Procedures WT 3 - Meeting October 17, 2017 @ 1500 UTC

[Aikman-Scalese, Anne]

Kristina,
It would be great if you could summarize some principles/observations before the call.  I am particularly interested in your views re conflict of interest and also whether you think the revisions to the IRP process are going to be effective.
If you have time…
Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office


520.879.4725 fax

AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>

_____________________________

[cid:image003.png at 01D34689.E3198240]

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/>



From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Karen Day
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 5:22 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] Agenda - Subsequent Procedures WT 3 - Meeting October 17, 2017 @ 1500 UTC

Thanks for letting us know, Kristina. I’m sorry too that the timing is so bad, but please use the list to share your input on your experiences.

Best,
Karen


On Oct 15, 2017, at 8:12 PM, Rosette, Kristina <rosettek at amazon.com<mailto:rosettek at amazon.com>> wrote:

EXTERNAL
With apologies, I’ll have to miss this call as I have a conflicting meeting.  (As perhaps one of the few people on the WT who has used 4 Accountability Mechanisms – Request for Reconsideration, Request under Documentary Disclosure Information Policy, Complaint to Ombudsman, and IRP – I regret having to miss the call, but will definitely read the transcript.)

From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Karen Day
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 10:35 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] Agenda - Subsequent Procedures WT 3 - Meeting October 17, 2017 @ 1500 UTC

Dear WT 3 Members:

Following on our conversation Tuesday, we have clarified with staff and the PDP leadership team that the 30 minutes WTs 1 & 3 will have with the GAC on Sunday in Abu Dhabi are not to present to the GAC, but rather to ask questions of the GAC to try to draw out more detailed input from them on the issues covered in our CC2 questions and their prior GAC Advice.  Therefore, our face to face PDP WG session on Saturday will not be preparation for the GAC meeting.  It will instead be the PDP membership’s time to discuss the input on communities received from CC2 responses and to look again at our strawbunny proposal defining what a community is.

With that being the case, we will proceed as planned with our next topics of Applicant Freedom of Expression and Accountability Mechanisms on our call this coming Tuesday, October 17th at 15:00.  And, although we only have 3 questions to cover, there is some significant input to review, so I would encourage you to read through the CC2 responses in full prior to the call.  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp0gZra7U0/edit#gid=845153891

AGENDA:
1: Welcome
2. Updated SOIs
3. Pre-F2F meeting updates
4. Applicant Freedom of Expression: 3.2.1 Noting that the 2007 Final Report on new gTLDs tried to balance the rights of applicants (e.g., Principle G) and rights holders (Recommendation 3), do you believe that the program was successful in doing so? If not, do you have examples of where either an applicant’s freedom of expression or a person or entity’s legal rights were infringed?
5. Accountability Mechanisms: 3.5.1 – Do you believe that the existing accountability mechanisms (Request for Reconsideration, Independent Review Process, and the Ombudsman) are adequate avenues to address issues encountered in the New gTLD Program?
3.5.2 – Should there be appeal mechanisms, specific to the New gTLD Program, introduced into the program? If yes, for what areas of the program (e.g., evaluations, objections, CPE)? Do you have suggestions for high-level requirements (e.g., if the appeal should be limited to procedural and/or substantive issues, who conducts the review, who is the final arbiter, safeguards against abuse, etc.).
6. AOB

Until Tuesday,
Karen


____________________________
Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP
Brand Protection & 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
www.sas.com<http://www.sas.com>

<image001.jpg>


________________________________

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3/attachments/20171016/37d3361f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6488 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3/attachments/20171016/37d3361f/image003-0001.png>