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

Aikman-Scalese, Anne AAikman at lrrc.com
Tue Sep 5 21:09:54 UTC 2017

My Straw Proposal is actually stated in A. below, and yet you have said you did not receive it.  It would be good to have the two side by side.

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 01D32650.A51FCC00]

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611


From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk at nic.br]
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 2:05 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: Jeff Neuman; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person

Em 5 de set de 2017, à(s) 17:52:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>> escreveu:

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)



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-wt4/attachments/20170905/7eaa8de8/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-wt4/attachments/20170905/7eaa8de8/image003-0001.png>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list