[Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg] Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 03:00 UTC

Mon Aug 14 10:39:13 UTC 2017

I haven’t seen any responses. My personal view is that these are some thoughtful and informed responses by Jeff.

A useful reminder of some of the key bumps in the road to rolling out the 2012 programme as well as references to both the underlying policy issues and the subsequent implementation issues.

I think the analysis presented and the distinction between programme and policy implementation is a useful framework to be able to refer to for this group as we consider the next round issues and the questions raised by Anne.

Jonathan

From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 6:25 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>; 'avri at apc.org' <avri at apc.org>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg] Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 03:00 UTC

POSTED IN MY PERSONAL CAPACITY AND NOT AS CO-CHAIR; THIS DOES NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF MY EMPLOYER OR ANY OF THE CONSITUENCIES THAT I MAY BE A PART OF.

Anne,

These are really good points, but taking off my chair hat, I do not believe all issues that arise (or have arisen in the 2012 round) were as a result of the implementation (or lack thereof) of the GNSO policies. Nor will each issue that will arise in the future be a result of implementation issues of the GNSO.

We will have to walk through carefully the line of demarcation, but I believe for example, there were a number of issues that were not issues of GNSO Policy Implementation, but rather were issues involving operational implementation of the program.  These are issues where the GNSO is not the body with the expertise (in my view) to resolve, but even if they were, the impact of the issues were felt more on the applicants themselves than on the Internet community as a whole. 

Example 1:  The TAS Application Security Breach:  This was an operational implementation flaw which was not impacted by the policy.  The primary impact was felt by the new gTLD applicants and not the community as a whole.  Resolution of this matter was decided solely by the ICANN staff without any input from the applicants or the GNSO.  Reconvening a GNSO IRT is not an efficient way of resolving this issue and deciding the path forward.  Sure input could be solicited, but a panel of experts would have provided in my personal view better advice to the ICANN Org on what to do.

Example 2:  Digital Archery Fail:  Sure we will be talking about how to resolve this issue for subsequent application windows, so this will not come up again.  But the primary impact was felt by the applicants themselves and not the community.  Thus, a GNSO Implementation IRT, in my view, would not necessarily be the appropriate way to handle.  The new system unilaterally selected by ICANN cost each applicant an extra $100 per application which was unanticipated.

Example 3:  Changes to the ICANN Registry Agreement midstream.  Perhaps here would be an appropriate use of a GNSO Implementation team. Others would argue, however, that the changes that were proposed (namely, giving ICANN additional opportunities to unilaterally amend the agreement, disproportionately impacted the Applicants more than the community).

Example 4:  Changes to the Pre-delegation Testing criteria – Again, this was an operational implementation of the policy requiring adequate pre-delegation testing.  It had a disproportionate effect on the applicants and did not arise due to an issue with the implementation of the GNSO Policy.

I could go on and on.  The overall point is that in my personal view, there are issues with the implementation of the GNSO policies, and there are other issues that I call issues with the implementation of the “GNSO Program.” Perhaps there are better ways to describe the issue to avoid the confusing terminology, but at the end of the day, setting up a GNSO Implementation Team for these issues, even with the new processes put in place, would not be the best may, in my personal way, to resolve.

The issues that I do believe the GNSO should be consulted on are where issues arise out of the specific implementation of the policy.  For the 2012 round, I would include the following issues as ones where the GNSO IRT could have (or should have been consulted)

1.	The decision on which Rights Protection Mechanisms should be employed.  This was not an issue that went through the GNSO in the 2012 round (though the GNSO provided comments).  This would also include the decision of whether to have a centralized vs. decentralized clearinghouse model.  If you recall, ICANN staff initially proposed a decentralized model and a number of us in the community had to convince ICANN that such a mechanism would be fundamentally flawed. 

a.	PLEASE NOTE, HOWEVER, THAT THE DECISION TO USE “SMD FILES” VS. OTHER TYPES OF ENCRYPTION, I BELIEVE WOULD FALL INTO THE CATEGORY OF OPERATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION (NOT POLICY).   Thus convening a GNSO committee for that decision would not have been practical.

2.	The decision to protect IGO/INGO Names.  That went counter to the GNSO Recommendations and therefore should have gone through the GNSO.

3.	Protection of Geographic Names:  Similar to IGO/INGO names, this was not consistent with the GNSO Policy and therefore, the GNSO should have been involved.

4.	How the ICANN Board handled the Closed Generic issue – That should have gone back to the GNSO according to the Policy and Implementation group.

5.	How the ICANN Board handled plurals vs. singular – That was a policy implementation issue, because it was ICANN staff’s interpretation of the GNSO Policy on not having confusingly similar strings.

So Anne, I do believe there is a line between Policy Implementation and Program Implementation.  And in either case, there should be predictable mechanisms to deal with those issues as they arise.  Not all of them should go to the GNSO, but similarly, not all of them should be decided by ICANN staff alone.

Perhaps a standing panel of “experts” to advise ICANN staff is one way forward?

Jeffrey J. Neuman

Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA

1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600

Mclean, VA 22102, United States

E:  <mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> jeff.neuman at valideus.com or  <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> jeff.neuman at comlaude.com 

T: +1.703.635.7514

M: +1.202.549.5079

@Jintlaw

From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 6:45 PM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> >; 'avri at apc.org' <avri at apc.org <mailto:avri at apc.org> >
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> 
Subject: RE: [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg] Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 03:00 UTC

Jeff and Avri,

The question I had was about where the REVISIONS to the Implementation Framework came from.   In other words, who authored them and what changes do the new provisions make to the existing Framework that resulted from the community-wide multi-stakeholder collaboration that Alan described?  That is the procedural question.

Separately, I think that if we now develop a category called “operational implementation”, we may be creating yet another dichotomy that  will cause “road bumps” in the next round.  Most of the issues that the Policy and Implementation Working Group considered as “case studies”  could also have been characterized as either “policy implementation” or “operational implementation”.  One big point of consensus in the Policy and Implementation WG was that the definition should not be controlling.  What was controlling was the notion that the matter “in controversy” (or if you will the “operational implementation question” ) needed to go back to the GNSO for ITS determination as to whether the issue involved policy or not.  (To use the new terminology mentioned on the call today, a GNSO determination as to whether the issue involves “policy implementation” or “operational implementation”.)

It may be more useful to talk about WHEN a problem arises rather than what type of problem it is.  For example, I believe that under the existing Framework, while IRT (Implementation Review Team) is still convened, IRT is supposed to figure out whether the issue needs to be raised with GNSO or not.  If we are trying to create a mechanism that will operate once IRT is disbanded, that is another story  - who makes the call?  (Someone asked a question in the doc about the possible need for a Standing IRT.)  

On the merits:  At issue here is “who decides whether an issue arising during the implementation phase is sufficiently controversial as to require GNSO advice?”  My point is that we should not revert to a system where ICANN staff is making the determination itself as to whether GNSO needs to consider the issue.  That was the whole reason behind the Policy and Implementation Working Group work.  Issues like “digital archery”, “name collision”, and changes in the terms of Registry Agreement can easily fall into the bucket of needing to be considered by the GNSO for either “Input”, “Guidance”, “Expedited PDP”, or “PDP”.    Labeling an issue as “operational implementation” doesn’t change that.  This is because, as we have learned with the history of the new gTLD program, if you are for the solution that ICANN.org develops to the issue that arises during implementation, then it is “operational implementation”.  On the other hand, if you are against the solution, it’s “policy implementation”.

Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office

520.879.4725 fax

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

_____________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

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

From: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>  [mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Michelle DeSmyter
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 2:34 PM
To: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> 
Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> 
Subject: [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg] Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 03:00 UTC

Dear all,

The following call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 at 03:00 UTC.

20:00 PDT, 23:00 EDT, 04:00 London, 05:00 CEST 

for other places see:  <http://tinyurl.com/y94xsmxx> http://tinyurl.com/y94xsmxx

ADOBE CONNECT Room :  <https://participate.icann.org/newgtldswg> https://participate.icann.org/newgtldswg

If you require a dial-out, please email me with your preferred contact number at  <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> gnso-secs at icann.org

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Michelle 

____________________________________________________________________________

Participant passcode: NEW GTLD

Dial in numbers:

Country

Toll Numbers

Freephone/
Toll Free Number

ARGENTINA           

0800-777-0519

AUSTRALIA           

ADELAIDE:      

61-8-8121-4842           

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA           

BRISBANE:      

61-7-3102-0944           

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA           

CANBERRA:      

61-2-6100-1944           

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA           

MELBOURNE:     

61-3-9010-7713           

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA           

PERTH:         

61-8-9467-5223           

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA           

SYDNEY:        

61-2-8205-8129           

1-800-657-260

AUSTRIA             

43-1-92-81-113           

0800-005-259

BELGIUM             

32-2-400-9861            

0800-3-8795

BRAZIL              

SAO PAULO:     

55-11-3958-0779          

0800-7610651

CHILE               

1230-020-2863

CHINA               

CHINA A:       

86-400-810-4789          

10800-712-1670

CHINA               

CHINA B:       

86-400-810-4789          

10800-120-1670

COLOMBIA            

01800-9-156474

CROATIA             

080-08-06-309

CZECH REPUBLIC      

420-2-25-98-56-64        

800-700-177

DENMARK             

45-7014-0284             

8088-8324

EGYPT               

0800000-9029

ESTONIA             

800-011-1093

FINLAND             

358-9-5424-7162          

0-800-9-14610

FRANCE              

LYON:          

33-4-26-69-12-85         

080-511-1496

FRANCE              

MARSEILLE:     

33-4-86-06-00-85         

080-511-1496

FRANCE              

PARIS:         

33-1-70-70-60-72         

080-511-1496

GERMANY             

49-69-2222-20362         

0800-664-4247

GREECE              

30-80-1-100-0687         

00800-12-7312

HONG KONG           

852-3001-3863            

800-962-856

HUNGARY             

36-1-700-8856            

06-800-12755

INDIA               

INDIA A:       

000-800-852-1268

INDIA               

INDIA B:       

000-800-001-6305

INDIA               

INDIA C:       

1800-300-00491

INDONESIA           

001-803-011-3982

IRELAND             

353-1-246-7646           

1800-992-368

ISRAEL              

1-80-9216162

ITALY               

MILAN:         

39-02-3600-6007          

800-986-383

ITALY               

ROME:          

39-06-8751-6018          

800-986-383

ITALY               

TORINO:        

39-011-510-0118          

800-986-383

JAPAN               

OSAKA:         

81-6-7878-2631           

0066-33-132439

JAPAN               

TOKYO:         

81-3-6868-2631           

0066-33-132439

LATVIA              

8000-3185

LUXEMBOURG          

352-27-000-1364          

8002-9246

MALAYSIA            

1-800-81-3065

MEXICO              

GUADALAJARA (JAL):

52-33-3208-7310          

001-866-376-9696

MEXICO              

MEXICO CITY:   

52-55-5062-9110          

001-866-376-9696

MEXICO              

MONTERREY:     

52-81-2482-0610          

001-866-376-9696

NETHERLANDS         

31-20-718-8588           

0800-023-4378

NEW ZEALAND         

64-9-970-4771            

0800-447-722

NORWAY              

47-21-590-062            

800-15157

PANAMA              

011-001-800-5072065

PERU                

0800-53713

PHILIPPINES         

63-2-858-3716            

1800-111-42453

POLAND              

00-800-1212572

PORTUGAL            

351-2-10054705           

8008-14052

ROMANIA             

40-31-630-01-79          

RUSSIA              

8-10-8002-0144011

SAUDI ARABIA        

800-8-110087

SINGAPORE           

65-6883-9230             

800-120-4663

SLOVAK REPUBLIC     

421-2-322-422-25         

0800-002066

SOUTH AFRICA        

080-09-80414

SOUTH KOREA         

82-2-6744-1083           

00798-14800-7352

SPAIN               

34-91-414-25-33          

800-300-053

SWEDEN              

46-8-566-19-348          

0200-884-622

SWITZERLAND         

41-44-580-6398           

0800-120-032

TAIWAN              

886-2-2795-7379          

00801-137-797

THAILAND            

001-800-1206-66056

TURKEY              

00-800-151-0516

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

8000-35702370

UNITED KINGDOM      

BIRMINGHAM:    

44-121-210-9025          

0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM      

GLASGOW:       

44-141-202-3225          

0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM      

LEEDS:         

44-113-301-2125          

0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM      

LONDON:        

44-20-7108-6370          

0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM      

MANCHESTER:    

44-161-601-1425          

0808-238-6029

URUGUAY             

000-413-598-3421

USA                 

1-517-345-9004           

866-692-5726

VENEZUELA           

0800-1-00-3702

VIETNAM             

120-11751

  _____  

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/attachments/20170814/05cfb198/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6496 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170814/05cfb198/image001-0001.png>