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

Wed Oct 30 16:29:14 UTC 2019

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20191030/959a162a/attachment.html>