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

Tue Mar 29 19:16:32 UTC 2016

Thank 
We are on the same wave length
And hope the co- chairs keep  this group politically free and just professional in place
Regards
Kavouss 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 29 Mar 2016, at 16:15, avri doria via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg