[Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Community Comment 2 Next Steps

Mon Feb 20 22:05:55 UTC 2017

Understand your views Greg, and we should discuss further, but to release in pieces each with a 40 day comments period would extend this PDP out another 120 days or so.  In addition, hopefully there will be some areas which will not need comment by every SO/AC/C etc.  I know there is a tendency to want to answer every single question, but I am not sure that every group needs to.

But let's continue the discussions on email.

Thanks.

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 20, 2017, at 3:34 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:

I've just been through the questionnaire for the first, and I have two overall observations.

First, as a member of the WG, this still appears to be quite rough for something intended for distribution in two weeks.

Second, as a member (and Chair) of a SO/AC/SG/C (IPC), this is going to be an incredibly heavy lift.  There are an incredible number of questions and subquestions here, and most should not be answered "off the cuff."  It would be better if this were issued in pieces, though I understand how much more useful it will be to us if we have all the answers at the same time.  I can't imagine the logistics and the effort involved in getting this done by my constituency on a "massively parallel" basis in any reasonable period of time.  Inevitably, many questions will get short shrift in the struggle to get this done.

Good luck to all of us!

Greg

Greg Shatan
C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Hi WG members,

in 2.3 (Reserved Names). We in this WG are dealing with the terminology on daily basis – but not everybody we are tasking to provide feedback does. I have seen time after time people confusing the top-level and the second level when it comes to “reserved names”. For the avoidance of doubt I suggest to add for each section whether it pertains the top-level or the second level. Seems all bullet points but 2.3.5 concern top-level strings, only 2.3.5 is related to the 2nd level?

In 2.3.3 we ask: “…..should Country or Territory Names be allowed within the New gTLD Program (e.g., section 2.2.1.4.1 of the Applicant Guidebook)?”.
This seems to be rather unspecific. What is  “e.g., section 2.2.1.4.1 of the Applicant Guidebook” be meant to say? 2.2.1.4.1 is the ONLY provision excluding ISO 3166 Alpha 3 / territory names. Why “e.g.”? That suggests there were other provisions. There are not.
2.2.1.4.1 was a placeholder created to postpone the decision how ISO 3166 Alpha 3 / territory names are dealt with. An entire cross community WG spent YEARS to deal with the problem – and came recently up with very little (I am member of it). This can’t be addressed in a side sentence. I suggest the following changes:

Current version:
“For instance, should Country or Territory Names be allowed within the New gTLD Program (e.g., section 2.2.1.4.1 of the Applicant Guidebook)?”

Suggested version:
For instance, should Country & Territory Names or ISO 3166 Alpha-3 code elements (as specified in section 2.2.1.4.1 of the Applicant Guidebook) be allowed within the New gTLD Program? According to the current AG version they would already automatically require government support (2.2.1.4.2 AG). Would that be sufficient or would you suggest additional requirements (e.g. approval by the relevant ccTLD manager or GAC member)?

Background: I have observed in WGs and ICANN sessions as well as in personal discussions with ccTLD managers and GAC members that most stakeholders are NOT aware that removing section 2.2.1.4.1 of the Applicant Guidebook would OF COURSE still require Government support for these strings – as they are all part of the various sections of ISO 3166! Removing 2.2.1.4.1 would NOT result in territory, country names or 3166 Alpha 3 codes being available WITHOUT government support (nor should it in my opinion).

Thanks,

Alexander Schubert

From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Steve Chan
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 3:47 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Community Comment 2 Next Steps

Dear WG Members,

As you probably know, the WG is currently drafting its second request for community comment. The WG co-chairs and co-leaders of the work tracks encourage you to review the draft Community Comment 2 (CC2) questions and make suggestions in the document to amend language, add questions, omit questions, etc. The WG is collaborating via Google Docs, which can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH-WWM/edit?usp=sharing. Attached, please find an extract of the questions in Word, for those that are unable to access Google Docs.

The intention is to distribute and publish these questions for public comment before ICANN58. To do so, here is the suggested path forward:

•         Members review and suggest changes. Some WTs may choose to discuss during their meetings, but we hope to conclude this phase on 24 February. Your contributions are critical to ensuring your voice is heard!

•         The full WG reviews CC2 on 27 February. This will be considered the first reading of CC2.

•         An additional full WG meeting will be scheduled for 6 March, where CC2 will be reviewed and be considered the second, and presumably final reading.

Assuming agreement is reached on the 6 March meeting, CC2 would then be published for public comment, as well as distributed to the chairs of the various Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, Supporting Organizations, and Advisory Committees.

If you have any questions, please let staff or the WG leadership know.

Best,
Steve

Steven Chan

Sr. Policy Manager

ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536

steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>
mobile: +1.310.339.4410<tel:(310)%20339-4410>
office tel: +1.310.301.5800<tel:(310)%20301-5800>
office fax: +1.310.823.8649<tel:(310)%20823-8649>

Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>.

Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO
Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/
http://gnso.icann.org/en/

_______________________________________________
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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170220/caa496d8/attachment-0001.html>