[GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ALAC position on newgTLD subpro

John Laprise jlaprise at gmail.com
Thu Jul 11 16:16:13 UTC 2019


Thanks Jeff,

We've been following the discussion and are in the process of producing
more detailed advice which will be forthcoming. However I can respond to
points 1 & 4 now.

It is our view that the subpro work is akin to refining the machinery while
initiating a round is using the machinery. One necessarily precedes the
other and we support the subpro work. We want it completed before we start
using it in the future.

On point 4: this is documented in ALACs #ICANN65 talking points document as
well as recordings and transcripts of ALAC's session with GDD. We've also
communicated this to the board with regularity and the other ACs. At
Large's Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) will be providing further
detail as you requested.

Sent from my Pixel 3XL

John Laprise, Ph.D.

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 10:52 AM Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> wrote:

> Thanks John for this e-mail.
>
>
>
>
>
> We discussed this comment and a few questions were raised during the call
> last night.
>
>
>
>    1. “ALAC will not support a new gTLD round….”  Can you please confirm
>    that the ALAC position refers only to the opening of the application window
>    as opposed to ICANN and the community taking steps to prepare for the
>    opening of the next application window.  When something like this came up
>    previously with respect to the NCAP studies being a dependency for the next
>    round, Justine in the attached e-mail, explained:
>
>
>
> *“The Subsequent Procedures WG can conclude its work, and implementation
> may proceed, BUT EITHER ICANN may not launch the application window until
> the NCAP study(ies) are completed and any recommendations resulting from
> those study(ies) are addressed in implementation OR ICANN may launch the
> application window and start the evaluation process, but no TLD may be
> delegated until the NCAP Study(ies) is/are completed and any
> recommendations resulting from those study(ies) are retroactively
> incorporated.”*
>
>
>
>        Can you please explain if this should be interpreted similarly –
> namely, that implementation can proceed in ALAC’s view?
>
>
>
>    1. “full implementation of CCT….recommendations are fully
>    implemented.”  As you are no doubt aware, the CCT recommendations contain a
>    number of levels.  Some are labeled as pre-requisites to the launch of the
>    next round, others are not.
>
>
>
>    1. Is the ALAC only referring to those recommendations that are deemed
>       to be pre-requisites?  Or is the ALAC actually referring to ALL
>       recommendations regardless of how they were labeled?
>       2. In addition, not all of the recommendations were accepted by the
>       ICANN Board for immediate implementation.  Is the ALAC referring to only
>       the ones that were accepted by the ICANN Board or to literally all of the
>       recommendations regardless of whether they were accepted by the ICANN Board.
>
>
>
>    1. “full implementation of…RPM Recommendations are fully implemented”
>       1. Is the ALAC only referring to Phase One of the RPM work or to
>       both Phase One (New gTLD protections) and Phase Two (UDRP)?
>       2. The GNSO RPM PDP Working Group leaders represented to the GNSO
>       Council that they only believed that Phase One needed to be implemented by
>       the time the first new gTLD in the next round enters into an Agreement or
>       is delegated (not sure there was agreement on which one).  But in either
>       case the GNSO has discussed the possibility of moving forward with SubPro
>       (assuming it finishes first and has consensus recommendations accepted by
>       the Council, etc.) even if the RPM Phase 1 Work is not done.  So, this is
>       really related to Question 1 (see above).
>
>
>
>    1. Finally, your e-mail refers to “ALAC’s position as asserted to
>    ICANN GDD at ICANN65.”
>       1. Is that position documented?  And if so, can you please send the
>       position statement and rationale to this PDP Working Group for our review?
>       2. When was the ALAC position communicated to ICANN GDD?
>       3. Is there a transcript, presentation material, etc. of that
>       meeting and can they be sent to this Working Group for Review?
>
>
>
> I know these seem like a lot of questions, but I am assuming the e-mail
> you sent us was a brief summary of the conclusion of the ALAC position and
> it would be helpful for us to have all of the detail.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> *Jeffrey J. Neuman*
> Senior Vice President
>
>
> *Com Laude | Valideus *1751 Pinnacle Drive , Suite 600
> Mclean , VA 22102
> UNITED STATES
>
> T: +1.703.635.7514
> M: +1.202.549.5079
>
>
>
>
>
> CONFIRMATION OF ORDERS: Please note that we always confirm receipt of
> orders.  To assist us in identifying orders, please use the word ORDER in
> the subject line of your email. If you have sent us an order and have not
> received confirmation on the same working day (PST) it is possible that
> your order has not been received or has been trapped by our spam filter.
> In this case, please contact your client manager or admin at comlaude.com
> for confirmation that the order has been received and is being processed.
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of
> *John Laprise
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 10, 2019 10:20 PM
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Cc:* 'ALAC Members' <ALAC-members at icann.org>; 'ICANN At-Large Staff' <
> staff at atlarge.icann.org>
> *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ALAC position on newgTLD subpro
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> Just a useful reminder of ALAC’s position as asserted to ICANN GDD at
> ICANN65:
>
>
>
> ALAC will not support a new gTLD round until full implementation of CCT
> and RPM recommendations are fully implemented.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> John Laprise, Ph.D.
>
> NARALO ALAC Representative
>
> ALAC Vice Chair-Policy
>
>
> ------------------------------
> The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the
> intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way
> by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this
> message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the
> email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete
> it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility
> for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this
> email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability
> for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of
> the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes
> Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales
> with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell
> Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in
> England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at
> 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a
> company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its
> registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF
> Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered
> at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan)
> Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at
> Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further
> information see www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com>
> To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb at icann.org>,
> Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>, Jonathan Zuck <
> JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
> Bcc:
> Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 14:18:28 +0000
> Subject: Re: [GNSO-NewGTLD-WG-SGB] ALAC responses to Sub-group B triage
> exercise on Topics 2.7.5 IDNs and 2.7.8 Name Collisions
> Hi Jeff,
>
> In reply to your request for further clarification, the ALAC is saying:
>
> The Subsequent Procedures WG can conclude its work, and implementation may
> proceed, BUT EITHER ICANN may not launch the application window until the
> NCAP study(ies) are completed and any recommendations resulting from those
> study(ies) are addressed in implementation OR ICANN may launch the
> application window and start the evaluation process, but no TLD may be
> delegated until the NCAP Study(ies) is/are completed and any
> recommendations resulting from those study(ies) are retroactively
> incorporated.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Justine Chew
> ALAC liaison for Subsequent Procedures
> -----
>
>
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 22:10, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Justine and thanks to the ALAC.  I have one further clarification
>> question on Name Collisions:
>>
>>
>>
>> Below it states: “*Based on recent developments to the SSAC NCAP, the
>> ALAC advocates for any implementation, if not development, of policy with
>> respect to dealing with Names Collision, be subject to informed guidance
>> from the SSAC NCAP Study 1, at the minimum, as well as Study 2 and Study 3
>> (if Studies 2 and 3 were to proceed), and that the policy allow for the
>> implementation to take any NCAP recommendations into full account.”*
>>
>>
>>
>> This can be interpreted in a number of different ways.  Is the ALAC
>> saying:
>>
>>
>>
>>    1. SubPro should include a reference to the NCAP study(ies) in its
>>    Final Report and state that the implementation of the Next Round include
>>    recommendations (if any) from the that study (those studies) if and when
>>    those are made available.  The New TLD Program can continue and launch, but
>>    just have a process to allow for changes due too the results of the NCAP
>>    Study(ies); or
>>    2. SubPro should not complete its work in producing a final report
>>    until NCAP Study(ies) is/are completed; or
>>    3. SubPro can conclude its work, but implementation cannot begin
>>    until the NCAP Study(ies) is/are completed; or
>>    4. SubPro can conclude its work, implementation can continue, but
>>    ICANN may not launch the application window until the NCAP study(ies) are
>>    completed; or
>>    5. SubPro can continue its work, implementation can complete, ICANN
>>    can launch the application window and go through the evaluation process,
>>    but the TLD may not be delegated until the NCAP Study(ies) is/are completed;
>>    6. None of the above?
>>
>>
>>
>> As we get down to the wire it is going to be incredibly important to make
>> sure that we are precise.   All 5 options above could be consistent with
>> the statement above.
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>> *Jeff Neuman*
>>
>> Senior Vice President
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Com Laude | Valideus *1751 Pinnacle Drive
>>
>> Suite 600, McLean
>>
>> VA 22102, USA
>>
>>
>> M: +1.202.549.5079
>>
>> D: +1.703.635.7514
>>
>> E: *jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>*
>> www.comlaude.com
>>
>>
>> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the
>> sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This
>> message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential
>> information. If you have received this message in error, please send it
>> back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or
>> disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com
>> Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* GNSO-NewGTLD-WG-SGB <gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb-bounces at icann.org> *On
>> Behalf Of *Justine Chew
>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 24, 2019 10:05 PM
>> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb at icann.org
>> *Cc:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>; Jonathan Zuck <
>> JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
>> *Subject:* [GNSO-NewGTLD-WG-SGB] ALAC responses to Sub-group B triage
>> exercise on Topics 2.7.5 IDNs and 2.7.8 Name Collisions
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Thank you for allowing the ALAC the opportunity and time to respond to
>> the following alert and request for clarification on the topics of (I)
>> 2.7..5 IDNs and (II) 2.7.8 Name Collisions, respectively. I thankfully had
>> the opportunity to properly consult my colleagues during ICANN64 on the
>> same and am now pleased to provide the following ALAC responses.
>>
>> I would be most grateful for an acknowledgment of receipt of this email,
>> by leadership and/or staff, noting that Sub-group B has completed its work
>> on 5 March, so that the ALAC can be assured these feedback will be taken
>> into account accordingly in the upcoming deliberations of the Subsequent
>> Procedures WG at the plenary level.
>>
>>
>> * (I) 2.7.5 IDNs*
>> At the Sub-group B's call of 20 February, Rubens Kuhl very kindly alerted
>> us to a contradiction in ALAC's comment to *Q 2.7.5.e.2* and afforded an
>> opportunity to remove the contradiction. The ALAC gratefully accepts the
>> opportunity and wishes to re-state its comment as follows:-
>>
>>
>>
>> *The ALAC suggests that the "Same Entity Constraint" is enforced for all
>> variants, ie all variants are either allocated to the same registrant as
>> the primary label, or blocked. This would require registries (and possibly
>> registrars) to implement the necessary checks during the registration
>> process. Further, registrants may need to be educated about the reasons why
>> such a constraint exists.*
>>
>>
>> *(II) 2.7.8 Name Collisions*
>> At the Sub-group B's call of 5 March, there was a request/action item for
>> me to clarify the ALAC comment of "Wait on SSAC recommendations" to all
>> preliminary recommendations and questions in section 2.7.8, except for
>> 2.7.8.c.1. In response, the ALAC wishes to re-state its comment for
>> clarity, and which is in line with its comment to preliminary
>> recommendation 2.7.8.c.1, as follows:-
>>
>> *Based on recent developments to the SSAC NCAP, the ALAC advocates for
>> any implementation, if not development, of policy with respect to dealing
>> with Names Collision, be subject to informed guidance from the SSAC NCAP
>> Study 1, at the minimum, as well as Study 2 and Study 3 (if Studies 2 and 3
>> were to proceed), and that the policy allow for the implementation to take
>> any NCAP recommendations into full account.   *
>>
>>
>> FYI, I have copied Olivier Crepin-Leblond and Jonathan Zuck for their
>> information, in their capacity as Co-Chairs of the At-Large Consolidated
>> Policy Working Group (CPWG).
>>
>> Many thanks and kind regards,
>>
>>
>> Justine Chew
>>
>> ALAC liaison for Subsequent Procedures
>>
>>
>> -----
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/attachments/20190711/0ee9589e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________
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.


More information about the GTLD-WG mailing list