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

[Nick Wenban-Smith]

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 3rd 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] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 10:10 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto: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<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/20191030/08ee4017/attachment-0001.html>