[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Designation of Level of Support - Work Track 5 Report to the Full Working Group

Fri Nov 1 02:09:26 UTC 2019

I support the report as written.

 I do not support Alexander’s suggestion, but acknowledge his right to his
individual opinion.

Greg

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 1:42 PM Alberto Soto <alberto at soto.net.ar> wrote:

>
>
> +1 Mike
>
> Regards
>
> Alberto
>
> *De: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> en
> nombre de Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com>
> *Fecha: *miércoles, 30 de octubre de 2019, 12:37
> *Para: *Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>
> *CC: *leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> *Asunto: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Designation of Level of Support -
> Work Track 5 Report to the Full Working Group
>
>
>
> I doubt we will find consensus to add text like that, unless we add lots
> of other personal comments.  So Alexander,this sounds like an individual
> comment that should go into the public comment queue after the report is
> published.
>
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
>
> RODENBAUGH LAW
>
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
>
> http://rodenbaugh.law
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 9:27 AM Alexander Schubert
> <alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:
>
> Nick,
>
>
>
> Sorry for not being clear enough.
>
> *I am supporting the current  report!* WITHOUT any “changes”. We do not
> need to “change” the report.
>
>
>
> All I am saying is: Let’s (in 2021/2022) monitor any potential geo-name
> string gTLD abuse once the 2nd round roster is being published. IN CASE
> that we find rampant geo-name abuse: let’s discuss whether we might need to
> add geo-name policies FOR FUTURE ROUNDS (the rounds that FOLLOW the 2nd
> round).
>
>
>
> I am suggesting is to wrap that thought in words and add it to our report
> (WITHOUT “changing” the report in and of itself):
>
> *“One member expressed support for the report - but urged to **monitor
> potential geo-name abuse in the next gTLD round **and to address such
> abuse by introducing  **additional geo-name policy elements for following
> rounds - if needed**.”*
>
>
>
> Does it become more clear?
>
>
>
> If the full working group would pick up on it, and add respective language
> to the 2020 AGB – then upon detecting rampant geo-name abuse (in the 2nd
> round)  we are ALREADY mandated to sit together once again; and within
> weeks finding a remedy for the specific abuse – and it could then (in
> 2021/2022) be added to the AGB that is authoritative for the THIRD round
>  (the round that follows the 2nd round). If we do NOT add such language
> then ICANN needs probably all kinds of authorizations to create new working
> groups or whatnot – and there would be no justification to do so.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Nick Wenban-Smith [mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith at nominet.uk]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 30, 2019 4:54 PM
> *To:* alexander at schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Designation of Level of Support -
> Work Track 5 Report to the Full Working Group
>
>
>
> Hi Alexander
>
>
>
> This confused me.
>
>
>
> You said you supported the report, and then went on to list a whole set of
> ways in which you say the report needs changing.
>
>
>
> What are the rest of us, and the co-leads, and staff, supposed to make of
> that?!
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Alexander Schubert
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 30, 2019 2:20 PM
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Designation of Level of Support -
> Work Track 5 Report to the Full Working Group
>
>
>
> Hi WT5 leadership,
>
>
>
> As I am flagged as “unclear” in the excel – let me reiterate: I do support
> the report and recommendations FOR THE NEXT ROUND!
>
>
>
> Additionally I suggest to add:
>
>    - Many WT members had grave concerns that geo communities might fall
>    victim to abuse when third parties apply for “their” gTLD string
>    - Example being “Shanghai” being applied for WITHOUT letter of
>    non-objection by the city Government of 24 million people
>    - Other members flat-out denied that such risks would create problems
>    and pointed to post-application measures such as GAC-advice or community
>    objections
>    - In the end the WT5 could not agree on extended protections to a
>    large degree due to the absence of abuse in the 2012 round
>    - Hence WT5 recommends to closely monitor the grade of abuse of
>    geo-name-based gTLDs in the next round
>    - In the event of significant, impacting abuse WT5 recommends that the
>    GNSO immediately creates another policy body to create geo-name-policy
>    amendments if needed
>
>
>
> Am I the only one who is of the opinion that monitoring the results of the
> application roster of the next round makes sense? We painted the most gruel
> horror scenarios – and suggested polices to prevent them. Only to hear from
> some here that there was no evidence that any of the terrible things would
> ever happen. Well: let’s keep the door open to see who is right. If there
> is no rampant abuse: we are good. If we see portfolio applicants blanketing
> hundreds of city-strings with cookie cutter applications which are NOT
> “targeting the city” (and consequently don’t need and don’t have letters of
> non-objection): we have a problem, right?
>
>
>
> We have to be aware that most likely the policies that we create THIS time
> around will impact many future rounds; and that there likely won’t be a PDP
> before the 3rd round starts. If we detect a certain “geo-name problem”
> (e.g. rampant city-string grabs without non-objection letters by portfolio
> applicants) – then I assume we could target THAT isolated problem in a
> matter of weeks – and offer the result to the community as add-on for the 3
> rd round. We won’t repeat the entire geo-name PDP from start – we would
> just look at the problem we discovered.
>
>
>
> If you need to cut it to one sentence:
>
> *“One member expressed support for the report but urged to monitor
> potential geo-name abuse in the next gTLD round and to address such abuse
> with additional geo-name policy elements for following rounds if needed.”*
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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 *Emily Barabas
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 30, 2019 10:10 AM
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Designation of Level of Support - Work
> Track 5 Report to the Full Working Group
>
>
>
> Sent on behalf of the WT5 co-leaders
>
>
>
> Dear WT5 members,
>
>
>
> Thank you to everyone who took the time to participate in the consensus
> call on the Work Track 5 Report to the Full Working Group. We have received
> responses from 33 members. 29 members expressed support, 3 expressed
> opposition, and one provided a response that did not directly express
> support or opposition (summary of responses attached). Looking not only at
> these numbers, but also at qualitative factors, such the extent to which
> those who responded actively participated in Work Track deliberations, the
> co-leaders designate the level of support for the Final Report as
> “consensus.”
>
>
>
> As a reminder, you can find additional information about the Standard
> Method for Making Decisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures in section 3.6
> on page 53:
> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedures-24oct19-en.pdf
> ).
>
>
>
> If you feel that the co-leaders made an error in the designation, please
> respond to the mailing list with your rationale no later than Friday 1
> November at 9:00 UTC.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> WT5 Co-Leaders
> Olga Cavalli, Annebeth Lange, Javier Rúa-Jovet, Martin Sutton
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Emily Barabas *| Policy Manager
>
> *ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>
> Email: emily.barabas at icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal
> data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of
> subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (
> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (
> https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above
> to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing,
> setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a
> vacation), and so on.
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20191031/5f0277fd/attachment-0001.html>