[Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 30 January 2000 UTC Call - TWO COMMENTS ON THE DISCUSSION

[Rubens Kuhl]

> Em 31 de jan de 2020, à(s) 20:39:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com> escreveu:
> 
> Dear Jeff et al,
> I ended up being in the air with no Internet access during the scheduled call time, but have now listened to the recording:  I have three comments on the discussion:
> 
> 1. Adoption of the term “Affirmation”.   We will ultimately need to distinguish between an Affirmation that is representative of Consensus or Rough Consensus and an Affirmation  (or other category) that results in a “fallback” position to the 2012 AGB or practice due to a failure of the WG to reach Consensus.  So the addition of an “Affirmation” category is still a bit unclear in this regard.  Is the word “Affirmation” an equivalent to the designation “Consensus”?  Will there be more than one category of “Affirmation”?  Do we have a clear definition of “Affirmation” for the document that will be published?
> 

I don't think we should differentiate the method to reach to an affirmation, whether it's was consensus or lack thereof. We should try harder to reach consensus in all areas so we don't get the same we've got in 2012, but if not, I don't see why it should be seen with different eyes.


> 2.  Applicants “checking the box” re use of Pre-approved RSP.   With respect to the RSP “Pre-approval”, it was mentioned on the call that an applicant might “check the box” stating that it would be using a pre-approved RSP.  I think we need to consider that applicants might be tempted to prepare an application, not actually having concluded an agreement with a “pre-approved” RSP, and simply have “checked the box” to avoid further costs until the applicant sees whether or not its application can move forward, whether there are other applicants for the same string (string contention), whether there might be Objections, and whether or not it succeeds in the financial evaluation.  So what degree of “proof” might be required to verify that the applicant’s RSP services are actually in place?  Or do we care whether or not the agreement with the pre-approved RSP is in place at the time of application?  If the RSP agreement that is claimed in “check the box” is not in fact in place, does that mean that ICANN could be wasting time in applying other eavaluation processes to the application?

This is not a simple check box, it's a commitment. But it doesn't imply that anything is already set up, just that the applicant commits to such use of an approved RSP.


Rubens

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200131/9513c82f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 528 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200131/9513c82f/signature.asc>