[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] WT4 Call #25

Wed Feb 28 21:47:57 UTC 2018

Rubens,
Your responses all seem to indicate that the draft Initial Report will not issue until after Puerto Rico.  The Sub Pro Leaders had indicated otherwise.  Which is it?
Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office

520.879.4725 fax

AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>

_____________________________

[cid:image003.png at 01D3B0A3.1E425DA0]

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/>

From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk at nic.br]
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 2:12 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org; Jeff Neuman; Cheryl Langdon-Orr
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] WT4 Call #25
Importance: High

Anne,

I understand that you suggested these issues to be added. Responses inline.

Em 28 de fev de 2018, à(s) 17:42:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>> escreveu:

Thanks Rubens.  Regarding AOB, I had previously raised issues in relation to topics discussed in Call #21 and was assured that these would be addressed in upcoming calls.   A copy of my e-mail of January 17 concerning these issues is again attached.

In the plenary meeting on Monday, I requested that these issues be added to the agenda for the March 1 call.  My concern is that the issues will be skipped.  It seems that a draft Initial Report is imminent.   Thus, these issues should be raised for further discussion in AOB so that the work of the group on those issues can be accurately reflected in the draft Initial Report before it goes out for public comment.

Call #25 is not the only discussion vehicle until initial report is complete.

A very short summary of the noted issues appears in bullet point form below:

1.       Aggregated technical evaluation should not affect the order of processing applications.  Kurt Pritz objected to the “as much as feasible” language in the slides and stated “Additional technical evaluation should not retard or slow down applications….they should retain their place in queue and should not be penalized in any way from a timing standpoint.”  This issue should be raised for public comment.

I remember that discussion surfacing during the registry services discussion, but it indeed might be bigger than that. It's also likely bigger than WT4, since other processing speed differences might rise from many other factors. On WG co-chairs and WT1 co-chairs preference on whether to discuss this holistically I'll defer to them in discussing it in WT1 or in Full WG, but we still can discuss this topic within the narrow focus of the registry services theme.

2.       Issue Still to be Defined – whether a new gTLD applicant should or should not be required to disclose planned new services at the time of application.  This is an important question for public comment in that the current policy requires such disclosure where as several in the group commented that they disfavor public disclosure of new services and favor the RSEP process.   This also relates to Question 18 of the application.  Three straw models were proposed and discussed.  Friendly amendments were offered, but no final recommended model was adopted by the group.  Will all three models go out for public comment?

The registry services discussion was picked as the topic for our F2F meeting in Puerto Rico. I don't know the outcome of that discussion because it has yet to occur... so I'll ask for a rain check in answering the initial report part of it.

But on current status, we need to remember that RSEP policy (different from RSEP procedure and RSEP process) for already established registries, even those that signed a contract 1 day before applying to offer a registry service, is a policy that's not in the WG charter to revise... so there is no opposition between the two. We can't change the RSEP policy, so we can only pick different options for what happens during application phase.

3.       Name Collisions – Items which should be put out for public comment are:

(a) Should ICANN be directly responsible for controlled interruption rather than the registries?
(b) What should be the period of controlled interruption?
(c) Re the proposal for “do not apply” and “exercise care” lists, as well as low and medium risk categories, we need public comment on how to establish standards for these lists so that our input can be provided to the SSAC, and
(d) we need public comment on whether or not applicants should be able to propose name collision mitigation plans on an individual string-by-string basis and what mechanism, if any, could be put in place to approve such an individualized  mitigation plan.  (Again, this will be important for providing input to the SSAC.)

Public comment is exactly why reports are published... but when we do have a proposal, we can and should say what that is. For instance, (a) (b) and (d) already have... in (c) we indeed don't have (yet).
Also of notice is that SSAC hasn't asked for our input, so what we can do is publish GNSO perspective and if they have an input they want the give, they will tell us. There are SSAC members participating in WT4, there are SSAC members in technical forums we have and will continue reaching out to, so while it's not a secret what is being "baked" in WT4, and while they represent themselves and not SSAC in these fora, it's safe to assume they are aware of WT4 work. SAC086, 094 and 100 were also sent to our benefit in SubPro discussions.

Rubens

________________________________

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20180228/6de95943/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6488 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20180228/6de95943/image003-0001.png>