[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 28 March 2016

Tue Mar 29 14:06:38 UTC 2016

can you give us a link to the testimony referred to in your email below ?

Ken Stubbs

On 3/29/16 04:14, Kavouss Arasteh via Gnso-newgtld-wg wrote:
> Dear Co-Chairs
> Please kindly be informed that the outcome of this WG shall in no way 
> decrease  or degrade the   Role if GAC in the new round if gTLD . In 
> other words GAC preserves and maintains its rights as previously 
> contained in AGB.
> GAC expect from this process improvements and NOT losing any right it 
> already practiced.
> I am aware of the good? Relation between GNSO and GAC which was highly 
> demonstrated in CCWG by GNSO people which resulted GAC losing some if 
> its current power( read testimony of
>  Some GBSO colleagues before the House sub- committee.
> I hope we will not end up further division and polarisation and even 
> discrimination  in treating SO/AC .Stress Test 18 and Carve-Out  gave 
> already negatively and adversely affected GAC.
> GNSO needs to take a more positive and  faire  attitude vis a vis GAC.
> Regrads
> Kavouss
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 28 Mar 2016, at 19:46, Julie Hedlund via Gnso-newgtld-wg 
> <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>> wrote:
>
>> Dear PDP WG members,
>>
>> Please see below the actions captured by staff from today’s meeting 
>> and let us know if you have comments, changes, or questions.  Note 
>> that a transcript and MP3 also will be available.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Julie
>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>> *
>> *
>> *Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 28 
>> March 2016*
>>
>> /1.  Work Tracks 3, 4, 5/
>>
>> _Track 3 -- String Contention, Objections, Disputes_
>>
>> Clarifying Questions:
>> a. Kavouss Arasteh: Do we have a checklist of all those 
>> problems/difficulties with respect to similarity/singular v. plural 
>> so that someone could update it?
>>
>> Answer (Jeff Neuman) — It would be very valuable to produce a list of 
>> the singular v. plural, as well as group names with similar meaning. 
>>  In response to Paul McGrady's note --  there were initial 
>> evaluations and objections -- should user confusion in a trademark 
>> sense be part of an initial application/evaluation, or as part of an 
>> objection?  If in the initital evaluation what factors would go into 
>> that evaluation?
>>
>> *Action Item*: Produce a list of the singular v. plural, as well as 
>> group names with similar meaning.
>>
>> b. Alan Greenberg: Re: Level playing fields: How much emphasis should 
>> be made on this issue?  Have we decided if this is problematic.
>>
>> Answer (Jeff Neuman) —  This is an overall issue.  Same with 
>> safeguards.  No decisions have been made at this point.
>>
>> *Action Items:* Look at all the objections that were filed, how they 
>> turned out, consistency.  Check to see if the CCT Review Team may be 
>> doing this.   Look at the role of the independent objector.
>>
>> c. Kavouss Arasteh: Who is authorized to raise a question or 
>> objection based on the public interest?  Should we have some type of 
>> rationale?  Do we also accept political objections?
>>
>> Answer (Jeff Neuman): In 2012 anyone was entitled to file a public 
>> interest objection, but it did cost money.  The grounds for the 
>> objection were in the Applicant Guidebook.  There was a process to 
>> ensure that the claim had some merit.  There was no formal objection 
>> ground for political objections, but the GAC or governments could 
>> file early warnings.  The GAC could always provide advice during the 
>> process.
>>
>> *Discussion Notes: *
>> Paul McGrady: Look very carefully at the GAC's role and how that 
>> played out in the first round.
>> Ken Stubbs: Develop a process and methodologies for dealing with 
>> objections to avoid them dragging out.
>> Greg Shatan: Re: consistency of outcomes -- we need to look at these 
>> things as processes and how this relates to the auction process.
>> Jeff Neuman: Include in this track contention resolution aspects, 
>> such as auctions, indirect contentions, etc.
>> Jay Westerdal: Some of the issues may take a year or two longer to 
>> resolve.
>> Jeff Neuman: Not sure how we can have an impact on the previous 
>> round.  Falls into how we stick to the principle that we are not 
>> advantaging/disadvantaging previous versus future applicants.
>>
>> _Track 4: Internationalized Domain Names_
>>
>> Clarifying Questions:
>> Paul McGrady: How far are we allowed to go with respect to 
>> encouraging adoption of internationalized domain names?  Can we 
>> recommend that ICANN lower the cost on IDNs?
>> Answer (Jeff Neuman) — It might be that we could discuss issues -- 
>> but not exact pricing -- that in theory that you could have a 
>> recommendation that ICANN should have a subsidy, or that ICANN should 
>> encourage.
>>
>> _Track 5: Technical & Operations_
>>
>> Clarifying Questions:
>> Alan Greenberg: We should be getting a report on whether the 
>> questions on the accreditation process met the needs or should they 
>> be changed.
>> Answer (Jeff Neuman) — I think ICANN staff have said they want to 
>> participate in this PDP WG.  They should be active members and listed 
>> on the wiki page.
>>
>> *Discussion Notes:*
>> Mary Wong: Note that the WG could ask for answers from staff for 
>> specific questions.
>> Alan Greenberg: I think we want something written from them, but much 
>> of this is implementation so it is not clear how deep we need to get 
>> into it.
>> Jeff Neuman:  It might be in the implementation report that they did. 
>>  See: 
>> https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/implementation/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf. 
>>  Also the comments on the report: 
>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-draft-review-23sep15/.
>> Avri Doria: We should make sure we look at relates to the original 
>> policy that the GNSO came out with that all registry requirements 
>> don't need to be the same.
>> Jeff Neuman: I could see that as a good issue for track 5.
>>
>> *Action Items:*  PDP WG support staff will take the action to add 
>> staff to the WG member list on the wiki.  The PDP WG will direct 
>> specific questions to staff as needed.
>>
>> /3.  Letter from Steve Crocker/
>>
>> *Discussion Notes:*
>> Jeff Neuman: I do think that the creation of yet another group to 
>> look at these questions would create a lot of overlap.  I think these 
>> questions are captured in the issues we have laid out and if not we 
>> should make sure they are in there.  We could respond to the Board by 
>> thanking them and that these are issues that are properly for the 
>> GNSO to consider.
>> Alan Greenberg: We can say, "noted" and the items are in our work list.
>> Steve Coates: General consensus is that this is a good letter.  It 
>> seems that a short response is necessary and appropriate.  Any 
>> questions with that approach?
>> Alan Greenberg: And we will coordinate with the CCT Review Team.
>> Jeff Neuman: Amr notes that these issues were brought up about the 
>> 2012 round in Marrakech.  We should make it clear that our 
>> jurisdiction is only over subsequent procedures, not current TLDs.
>> Alan Greenberg: There is no intent in the current ALAC advice to fix 
>> problems with the current round.
>>
>> *Action Item*: Staff will assist in drafting a brief response to the 
>> Board.
>>
>> /4.  Liaisons from SOs/Acs/
>>
>> *Discussion Notes:*
>> It would be up to the SO and AC.  They would not have special status 
>> in this WG, except for the GNSO Liaison.  They may have liaison 
>> status in their groups.  May be useful perhaps with the GAC, if they 
>> feel the need.
>>
>> 5. /Next Meeting: /Monday, 04 April at 2200 UTC.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20160329/864b0c38/attachment-0001.html>