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

Tue Mar 29 14:15:46 UTC 2016

Hi,

The political issues regarding Advisory Committees and Accountability
changes are not part of our charter.  I would ask people to keep the
discussions on this list to subsequent procedures that fall within the
defined constructs of ICANN organization.

To respond to your request Kavouss: it is not the business of this group
to deal with the decreasing or degrading anyone's role in subsequent
procedures, whether it turns out to be rounds or some other set of
procedures. 

I fully endorse the goal of ever improved working relationship between
the GAC and the GNSO.  I am happy to see members of the GAC
participating in this WG.

Thanks for your note.

avri

On 29-Mar-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

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus