[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Comment on Paragraph 1 of the Scope of Terms of Reference

Tue Dec 5 15:06:40 UTC 2017

There are a few versions of the TOR circulating but I trust that staff is
able to capture and reconcile all inputs to the working copy. I had made
some minor edits to a googledoc version although I don't know which one it
was now, but I will offer my comments here:-

1. I believe the reference to "treatment" was there because that is the
term contained in the AGB 2012. However, I don't have a preference as to
whether we should retain this reference or not because to me "*analysis of
the Review Procedure for Geographic Names contained in the 2012 Guidebook,
evaluation criteria and potential grounds for objection*" necessarily means
that we will review the treatment of applications for geonames at the top
level.

More importantly,

2. I support Heather's proposition to include defining geographic names as
a key task for this WT5 group, the reference to which does not appear in
Jeff's or Nick's version in this thread.

3. While Jeff and even Nick's version in this thread makes references to
ASCII and IDN forms, some other versions do not. I think it is important to
include this, especially if we are going to state specific sections of the
AGB 2012 which are silent on treatment on IDNs (eg. 2.2.1.4.1 which refers
to "any language" but not IDN scripts specifically).

Looking forward to seeing and commenting further on a fresh working copy
before the next call,

Justine
-----

On 4 December 2017 at 13:09, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I like NIck's "less is more" version.
>
> Maureen
> ALAC
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Nick Wenban-Smith <
> Nick.Wenban-Smith at nominet.uk> wrote:
>
>> How about
>>
>>
>>
>> *Work Track 5 will focus on developing proposed recommendations regarding
>> the treatment of geographic names at the top level (both in ASCII and IDN
>> form), including an analysis of the Review Procedure for Geographic Names
>> contained in the 2012 Guidebook, evaluation criteria and potential grounds
>> for objection.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick Wenban-Smith
>>
>> General Counsel | Nominet
>>
>> T: +44 (0) 1865 332211 <+44%201865%20332211>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nominet is a trading name of Nominet UK. Nominet UK is a limited company
>> registered in England and Wales. Registration number: 3203859. Registered
>> office: Minerva House, Edmund Halley Road, Oxford Science Park, Oxford OX4
>> 4DQ.
>>
>> This message may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
>> If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must not read, use
>> or disclose the contents of this email. If you receive this email in error,
>> please advise us immediately and delete the email.
>>
>> Nominet UK has taken every reasonable precaution to ensure that any
>> attachment to this e-mail has been swept for viruses. However, Nominet UK
>> cannot accept liability for any damage sustained as a result of software
>> viruses and would advise that you carry out your own virus checks before
>> opening any attachment.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org]
>> *On Behalf Of *Carlos Raul Gutierrez
>> *Sent:* 30 November 2017 17:44
>>
>> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Comment on Paragraph 1 of the Scope
>> of Terms of Reference
>>
>>
>>
>> Is there no way to avoid "treatment"????
>>
>> On November 30, 2017 9:24:22 AM CST, Jeff Neuman <
>> jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> wrote:
>>
>> Jorge,
>>
>>
>>
>> In an attempt to combine your proposal and mine, how about the following?
>>
>>
>>
>> *Work Track 5 will focus on developing proposed recommendations regarding
>> the treatment of geographic names at the top level (both in ASCII and IDN
>> form), including an analysis of the Review Procedure for Geographic Names
>> contained in the 2012 Guidebook, evaluation criteria and potential grounds
>> for objection.*
>>
>>
>>
>> We can add a footnote to that Review Procedure.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Jeffrey J. Neuman*
>>
>> *Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
>>
>> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
>>
>> Mclean, VA 22102, United States
>>
>> E: jeff.neuman at valideus.com or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
>>
>> T: +1.703.635.7514 <+1%20703-635-7514>
>>
>> M: +1.202.549.5079 <+1%20202-549-5079>
>>
>> @Jintlaw
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org
>> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 30, 2017 10:11 AM
>> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Comment on Paragraph 1 of the Scope
>> of Terms of Reference
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>>
>>
>> I apologize for not being able to follow this work track as closely as I
>> would like to, but other commitments are limiting the time I have for
>> specific ICANN policy work…
>>
>>
>>
>> Without prejudice to coming back later with more detailed comments, I am
>> a bit unsure about the direction we would be giving to the scope of our
>> work if we put into question in abstract “whether” the non-objection rule
>> should apply – in fact this apparently lays the focus on putting into
>> question the applicability of that non-objection rule instead of asking how
>> that rule works – its pros and cons etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> In fact, in Abu Dhabi there were many speakers at the F2F meeting (me
>> included) who (1) expressly supported that rule as something that had
>> worked pretty well in the 2012 round, (2) that supported a fact-based
>> approach to analyzing what the shortcomings (if any) were with this rule,
>> and (3) who advised against re-inventing that wheel.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hence, I feel we should formulate that section in the a more neutral
>> manner as follows:
>>
>>
>>
>> “*Work Track 5 will focus on developing proposed recommendations
>> regarding the treatment of geographic names at the top level (both in ASCII
>> and IDN form), in particular on evaluation criteria and potential grounds
>> for objection as well as analyzing the functioning of the non-objection
>> requirement by affected governmental authorities provided for in the 2012
>> round.”*
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope that this more neutral approach to the question may be acceptable
>> to all as a working basis.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Jorge
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 18:50, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> With respect to the Scope of the Terms of Reference, please keep in mind
>> that this section refers only to what will be discussed.  It is intended to
>> make sure the right questions are being asked and the right topics are
>> being covered.  It should also be neutral in nature to allow all sides of
>> an issue to be discussed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Therefore, may I suggest a slight rewording of that first paragraph to
>> the following:
>>
>>
>>
>> *Work Track 5 will focus on developing proposed recommendations regarding
>> the treatment of geographic names at the top level (both in ASCII and IDN
>> form), including whether such names require consent or non-objection from
>> applicable governmental authorities, evaluation criteria and potential
>> grounds for objection.*
>>
>>
>>
>> This shorter rewording moves the consent or non-objection part up in the
>> paragraph from where it is now.  The new wording does not preclude any
>> discussions on “approvals” nor does it implicitly endorse an approval-based
>> model.  It (hopefully) is neutral and by virtue of having the word
>> “consent” in the paragraph will naturally lead to discussions on how one
>> obtains consent or non-objection if required.
>>
>>
>>
>> In addition, the term consent is already in the Applicant Guidebook, so
>> it is a term that we are all familiar with.  And finally, according to
>> http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/consent, the term “Consent” is
>> synonymous with, “approval, assent, authorization, permission, allowance,
>> acquiescence”, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is being provided as a suggestion only to move forward the
>> conversation.  It is not being provided in any official capacity.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Jeffrey J. Neuman*
>>
>> *Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
>>
>> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
>>
>> Mclean, VA 22102, United States
>>
>> E: *jeff.neuman at valideus.com <jeff.neuman at valideus.com>* or *jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
>> <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>*
>>
>> T: +1.703.635.7514 <+1%20703-635-7514>
>>
>> M: +1.202.549.5079 <+1%20202-549-5079>
>>
>> @Jintlaw
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Kris Seeburn
>>
>> seeburn.k at gmail.com
>>
>>    - www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20171205/2d4f351f/attachment-0001.html>