[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person

[Rubens Kuhl]

> Em 5 de set de 2017, à(s) 17:52:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com> escreveu:
> 
> Rubens,
> I have communicated separately with you off-list and to Leadership regarding your response.  The following comments are circulated to the entire list:
>  
> A.      Please circulate the second Straw Proposal in addition to your own for comparison purposes.  The second proposal is that the language of Question 23 remain the same as in the 2012 round which states that all new services to be offered MUST BE DESCRIBED (see below) with the following addition:   “Applicant acknowledges that ICANN may establish two application evaluation tracks which will operate separately, one for applications which propose new registry services and one for applications which contain only the following pre-approved registry services:  LIST PRE-APPROVED SERVICES HERE (TO BE DISCUSSED ON THE NEXT CALL).


As I mentioned, I haven't received the second straw proposal. I believe Sarah, Kurt, and perhaps you could join them, were going to send one... as soon as one does, let's start circulating them both. Or three or more if it needs be... 

Note also the agenda for the next call was defined long before this discussion, and doesn't include registry services... if there is AOB time for it, it's sure a topic to add. 


>  
> B.      You state that it is “out-of-scope” for Work Track 4 for us to discuss the policy issue of incurring additional fees for evaluation of additional new registry services.  However, it is in fact your Straw Proposal that suggests such additional fees are appropriate.  If this is policy work that is “out-of-scope” for Work Track 4, then the language of your Straw Proposal is itself “out-of-scope”.

The latest straw person actually removed any fees reference, exactly due to that. BTW, this was added due to a comment during the call that was one made not by me or Cheryl... but anyway, it's removed both due to opposition and to be out of scope. 



>  
> C.      You state that I cannot raise issues regarding effect on RPM policy because that is for the RPM PDP, not for Work Track 4.  If you are advocating a policy change that affects RPM policy, it has to be raised and flagged, not buried as “out of scope” for Work Track 4.)  How will the RPM PDP even KNOW that such an issue is being created by a proposed change in Question 23 if not discussed and brought to their attention?


On the connection with RPM PDP WG, while there is not something currently foreseen at the work-track level, there is at the WG level, and every WT definition comes first to the WG, doesn't go into final report before that. From our charter:
"Second-Level	Rights	Protection	Mechanisms:	Proposing	recommendations	directly	related	to	RPMs	is	beyond the	remit	of	this	PDP. There	is	an	anticipated PDP on	the	"current	state	of	all	rights	protection	mechanisms	(RPMs)	implemented	for	both	existing	and	new	gTLDs,	including	but	not	limited	to	the	UDRP	and	the	URS...". Duplication	or	conflicting	work	between	the	New	gTLD	Subsequent	Procedures	PDP	and	the	PDP on	RPMs	must	be	avoided.	If	topics	related	to	RPMs	are	uncovered	and	discussed	in	the	deliberations	of	this	PDP,	those	topics	should	be	relayed	to	the	PDP	on	RPMs	for	resolution. To	assure	effective	coordination	between	the	two	groups,	a	community	liaison,	who	is	a	member	of	both	Groups,	is	to	be	appointed	jointly	by	both	Groups	and	confirmed	by	the	GNSO	Council."

The first topic you mentioned seemed to me an aspect of the sunrise/claims process, which is being actively worked by the RPM PDP WG. The other one is about registry services in general so is not directly related to RPMs; either way, every one of the SubPro recommendations will need, at the end, an analysis of whether it uncovered a new topic that should be forwarded to the RPM PDP or not. 

(remaining text already replied to)



Rubens

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20170905/afab238b/attachment.html>