[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [Ext] AW: Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 3 October 2018 at 20:00 UTC

Tue Oct 2 13:27:33 UTC 2018

Dear Jorge,

Thanks for your input. This will be tracked along with feedback received from Christopher Wilkinson and any additional input that comes in from the group.

Kind regards,
Emily

From: "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
Date: Tuesday, 2 October 2018 at 14:33
To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 3 October 2018 at 20:00 UTC

Dear Emily

Thank you very much for these sections of the draft initial report.

As I’m not sure whether I will be able to make it into the call tomorrow evening, please record and consider the following initial comments:

  *   Preliminary recommendation 2: in instances of confusion between a letter-letter and a character-letter or character-character combination, TLDs should be avoided that are confusingly similar to the letter-letter strings that are country codes.

  *   Preliminary recommendation 11: as “intended use” has been and is hotly debated in the work track, I feel it is premature to include this preliminary recommendation as it stands.

  *   As to section d) it seems that it focuses on “non-capital city names” (pages 6-11). This should probably be made even clearer if it is the case, in order to avoid any confusion.
Under the proposals reflected in this section it is surprising that intended use appears two times: first under 1 and then under 8. Proposal 8 is a variation of the “intended use” approach and should be presented in connection with 1. It is also surprising that the many arguments pro and con “intended use” (which are on the record) are not properly summarized in a box, as is being done for other proposals.
It is as well surprising that proposals to eliminate the “intended use” rule for non-capital city names are not listed as an option. This should be done and presented as an option. Such proposals also have been accompanied by suggestions to improve the letter of non-objection system (deadlines, mediations etc.), which should be included under that option.

  *   Regarding the subsection “additional proposals” (pages 11-17) it is unclear what the scope of this section is. Is it referring to non-AGB terms? Or does it refer also to AGB-terms?

If this section refers to “non-AGB” terms this should be made explicit.

If it refers to all kinds of terms (be it AGB or non-AGB) this section would probably merit to be considered a “general discussion”. In such case, the discussion on “non AGB” terms should be separated and included under a specific section.

Specific comments to these pages:

(1) page 12: proposed solution 1.2.1.: it is unclear what the “bright-line” intends to apply to (scope?). It is also unclear what could be the basis for protection (law, policy, administrative act?). Unless these elements are clarified this “proposed solution” seems unfit to be presented as such.

(2) page 13: text in the box should read “From one perspective, this enhanced role for the GAC members…”

(3) page 14, first and second bullets: these proposed solutions have been made in relation to non-AGB terms. This should be clarified. They would not replace the evaluation by the GNP.

(4) page 14: the meaning of the first bullet under point 2 is unclear, e.g. what means “unconditionally” “available”? to whom?

(5) page 15: what is the sense of proposed solution 3.3.1.? what is its scope? How does it play with other requirements?

(6) page 16: proposed solution 4.4.1. seems to repeat the “intended use” idea – this approach, as said above, should be consolidated under one single point.

(7) page 16: the suggested improvements to the letter of non-objection framework should be included clearly next to the statu quo option, as an evolution and improvement of it.

Thanks very much for your consideration and best regards

Jorge

Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> Im Auftrag von Emily Barabas
Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. Oktober 2018 12:31
An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 3 October 2018 at 20:00 UTC

Dear Work Track 5 members,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming Work Track 5 call, scheduled for tomorrow 3 October 2018 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

Proposed agenda:

1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates
2. Draft Initial Report Sections: Preliminary Recommendations, Options, and Questions
3. AOB

Those signed up as Members to this WT should have received meeting information from the SO/AC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies for the call, please contact the SO/AC Support team (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>). You can also send dial out requests to this address. Please do so 24 hours in advance of the call.

Kind regards,
Emily

From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org>>
Date: Thursday, 27 September 2018 at 20:11
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
Subject: Draft sections of WT5 Initial Report for WT review

Dear WT5 members,

Please find attached draft text for the following sections of the Initial Report:

  *   c. What are the preliminary recommendations and/or implementation guidelines?
  *   d. What are the options under consideration, along with the associated benefits / drawbacks?
  *   e. What specific questions are the PDP WG seeking feedback on?

These sections will be discussed on our upcoming call scheduled for Wednesday 3 October at 20:00 UTC. Please review this document prior to the call. If you would like to provide comments or raise concerns about sections of the text prior to the call for further discussion on the call, please send your comments in the body of an email, clearly identifying the page number and passage on which you are commenting. Please do not send your own redline version of the text to the mailing list. Given the very large number of WT members, it will be very difficult to reconcile many different redline versions.

The following sections of the report are still being drafted and will be shared when ready:

  *   a.     What is the relevant 2007 policy and/or implementation guidance (if any)?
  *   b.     How was it implemented in the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program?
  *   f.      Deliberations
  *   g.     Are there other activities in the community that may serve as a dependency or future input to this topic?

The Deliberations section will contain the summary of different positions and perspectives raised in WT discussions and on the mailing list.

Kind regards,
Emily

Emily Barabas | Policy Manager
ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas at icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20181002/c7d9d808/attachment-0001.html>