[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person

Wed Jan 17 22:07:42 UTC 2018

Dear Subsequent Procedures Work Track 4 Leadership and Participants,

I reviewed the chat and the mp3 recording from Call #21 which occurred November 30, 2017.  The slides were referred to consistently as “rough consensus” and are drafted as “Consensus Re”.  (Rubens also refers to “rough consensus” in writing in the chat.)

Please note Maxim echoed in chat my comment that it would be good to get slides before the call – at least 24 hours if possible.   In addition, at 52 minutes, Jeff Neuman stated in chat that the slides would be forwarded to the WT4 list for further comment.

Items as to which we, as members of the WT 4 group,  had input during the call include:

1.       At 15 minutes into the call, discussion of policy regarding aggregated technical evaluation should not affect order of processing applications, subject to the policy-making recommendations of Work Track ___  “as much as feasible (and consistent the order of processing of applications as recommended by Work Track X”.  This concept was supported vocally by Kurt Pritz at 18 minutes into the call and said “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”.  Kurt did not like the “as much as feasible” language either.  He said it was too vague as policy language.

2.       At 27 minutes into the call – Registry Services Slide  (Slide 8?)  – Clarify the issue Still to Be Defined – “whether a new gTLD applicant should be required to disclose new services at the time of application”.   Cheryl said this additional bullet is at 34 min into the call.   Cheryl also confirms in this discussion that there are in fact three Straw models still under discussion on this question and that this can be clarified in the slides.    (The second bullet point is misleading in that it states that RSEP is “the tool”  (emphasis added) for proposing new services.  This implies a consensus that RSEP trumps the existing policy that requires disclosure of proposed new services in a new gTLD application.)  Nowhere in the slides is there a reference to the discussion re the three Straw models.  Thus, this is an issue “Still To Be Defined”.  As per Cheryl’s comment, “This is clearly being marked out as work still to be done.”  Maxim also points out in chat that RSEP is only for registries that have a Registry Agreement and might not be so for Applicants.

3.       At 40 minutes into the call –Slide 11 – discussion of name collision “rough consensus”.  The following points were made:

(a)    When we speak of “delegating execution of name collision controlled interruption to ICANN”, we mean the act of controlled interruption, not the policy or the determination of the period of controlled interruption

(b)   Regarding the period, it is still to be determined whether Work Track 4 is recommending 90 days or 120 days

(c)    Re “do not apply” and “exercise care” lists, we need to consider a process whereby applicants could be notified early on if a gTLD that is not on the “do not apply” list will not be allowed to proceed due to name collision risk, or alternatively, will at least be advised very quickly of the category of name collision risk.   (This needs to be done so no applicants are stuck with applications pending for years as occurred in the 2012 round.)

(d)   Regarding the point “Still to be Defined” re “possible applicant opinion and submission of collision framework”, clarify that we are discussing the possibility that the applicant could submit its own assessment and its own proposal re name collision mitigation

Again, I found this call difficult in that the slides were presented as “Consensus Re” and had not been circulated prior to the call.   (I have made this same comment/request more than once in relation to Work Track 4.) Nevertheless, reviewing the chat and the mp3, everyone did their best to give input and this work should be reflected in whatever version of the slides Jeff and Cheryl elect to circulate to the list.

Thank you,
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 01D38FA4.EADAE960]

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, December 20, 2017 5:20 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org; Jeff Neuman
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person

On 20 Dec 2017, at 21:02, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>> wrote:

Rubens,

Please excuse the delay in my reply as I have been traveling.

I do not understand why you would require that I duplicate effort at a later stage of the subgroup’s deliberations.

I'm not requiring, I'm suggesting that by bringing each topic when they are discussed there is more chance of the suggestions being adopted. No one is required to do anything, and I will again point out that my suggestion was done regardless of any slides being changed or not.

The call was characterized as a “rough consensus” call and the slides state “Consensus Re” throughout.  There were no objections on the call to the language I suggested and Kurt supported one change very vocally.   Cheryl specifically asked for suggested language changes during the call and these were provided in chat.

As I already mentioned, the call was characterised as a "recap", and repeating this mischaracterisation won't change that.

 In order for the work of the Subgroup to be “up to date” and to clearly present the issues discussed, I must request once again that the slides be revised in accordance with the call transcript and that the most current work product of the group be posted to the wiki.

Hopefully this third written request will not be ignored by Leadership.

Your first request was directed to WT Leadership and answered promptly. Your second request was the first directed to Full WG Leadership, and this is the first reiteration of that request.
In any case, only them can answer a request made to them.

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/20180117/e77b16ff/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6514 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20180117/e77b16ff/image003-0001.png>