[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Predictability - Section 1.2.2
Poncelet Ileleji
pileleji at ymca.gm
Wed Apr 18 15:24:23 UTC 2018
Dear Karen,
Thanks for the clarifications.
Kind Regards
Poncelet
On 18 April 2018 at 15:01, Karen Day <Karen.Day at sas.com> wrote:
> Hi, Yes, leadership agreed to those and the edits to 1.2.2 were
> ‘officially’ added to the report by staff yesterday.
>
>
>
> Thanks again for raising this on the call, Monday, Jamie.
>
> Karen
>
>
>
> *______________________________________________________________*
>
> *Karen L. Day, NCCP **ACP*
>
> Brand Protection & Registry Operations Manager
>
> Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ Mobile: + 1 919-599-4356
>
>
>
> *From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 18, 2018 10:56 AM
> *To:* 'Jamie Baxter' <jamie at dotgay.com>; Karen Day <Karen.Day at sas.com>;
> 'Jim Prendergast' <jim at GALWAYSG.COM>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Cc:* Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; 'Steve Chan' <
> steve.chan at icann.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Predictability - Section 1.2.2
>
>
>
> *EXTERNAL*
>
> Thanks Karen. I agree regarding the detail that Jamie wants to include,
> but given the discussion, it does seem to make sense to include his
> suggested edit in the Overarching Issues in the section from his e-mail
> pasted here:
>
>
>
> “…changes to pre-delegation testing mechanisms, changes to launch
> mechanisms as result of name collision studies, and the creation of
> additional CPE guidelines prepared by the CPE providers, to name a few.”
>
>
>
> That would make this section consistent with proposed future edits in the
> CPE section of the report when we get to those.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Anne
>
>
>
>
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
>
> 520.629.4428 office
>
> 520.879.4725 fax
>
> AAikman at lrrc.com
>
> _____________________________
>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
>
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>
> lrrc.com
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jamie Baxter [mailto:jamie at dotgay.com <jamie at dotgay.com>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 18, 2018 7:46 AM
> *To:* Karen Day; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Jim Prendergast';
> gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Cc:* Jeff Neuman; 'Steve Chan'
> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Predictability - Section 1.2.2
>
>
>
> Thanks so much Karen
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Predictability - Section 1.2.2
> From: Karen Day <Karen.Day at sas.com>
> Date: Wed, April 18, 2018 10:38 am
> To: Jamie Baxter <jamie at dotgay.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne"
> <AAikman at lrrc.com>, 'Jim Prendergast' <jim at GALWAYSG.COM>,
> "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>, 'Steve Chan'
> <steve.chan at icann.org>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I just wanted to thank you all for this added discussion with regard to
> the CPE process and let you know that we will be including this as another
> example of how predictability was lacking in 2012 round. But since the
> substance of the issue on CPE is dealt with in another section of the
> report (1.9.1), I would like to ask that when that section of the report
> comes out for your review, that those members of WT3 review what we’ve
> written to ensure that it accurately covers the work we did and comment on
> that.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Karen
>
> Co-chair, WT 3
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jamie Baxter
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 17, 2018 6:49 PM
> *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>; 'Jim Prendergast' <
> jim at GALWAYSG.COM>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; 'Steve Chan' <
> steve.chan at icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Predictability - Section 1.2.2
>
>
>
> *EXTERNAL*
>
> I raised this concern in the initial comment period and on WT3 calls. I do
> recognize however that there are few (if any) other community applicants in
> the group and so the issue of the CPE guidelines (created by the CPE
> providers after applications were in) may not be widely known. I would be
> happy to engage in a further discussion on the issue within WT3 and dive
> deeper into the documents and subsequent impact on CPE.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, the Board requested CPE investigation that concluded in
> December 2017 did not include any mention of this issue when it concluded
> that there we no issues with how the CPE providers conducted CPE.
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Predictability - Section 1.2.2
> From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com>
> Date: Tue, April 17, 2018 6:18 pm
> To: 'Jamie Baxter' <jamie at dotgay.com>, 'Jim Prendergast'
> <jim at GALWAYSG.COM>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>, 'Steve Chan'
> <steve.chan at icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org"
> <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>
> So did we ever examine these documents in Sub Pro Work Track 3?
>
>
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
>
> Of Counsel
>
> 520.629.4428 office
>
> 520.879.4725 fax
>
> AAikman at lrrc.com
>
> _____________________________
>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
>
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>
> lrrc.com
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jamie Baxter [mailto:jamie at dotgay.com <jamie at dotgay.com>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 17, 2018 2:45 PM
> *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Jim Prendergast'; Jeff Neuman; 'Steve Chan';
> gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Predictability - Section 1.2.2
>
>
>
> The additional CPE guideline publication was a product of the CPE
> providers, and which ICANN upholds as legitimate CPE documents.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Predictability - Section 1.2.2
> From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com>
> Date: Tue, April 17, 2018 5:10 pm
> To: 'Jim Prendergast' <jim at GALWAYSG.COM>, Jamie Baxter
> <jamie at dotgay.com>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>, 'Steve Chan'
> <steve.chan at icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org"
> <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>
> Were these criteria published by ICANN or the DRPs?
>
>
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
>
> Of Counsel
>
> 520.629.4428 office
>
> 520.879.4725 fax
>
> AAikman at lrrc.com
>
> _____________________________
>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
>
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>
> lrrc.com
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jim Prendergast [mailto:jim at GALWAYSG.COM <jim at GALWAYSG.COM>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 17, 2018 1:40 PM
> *To:* Jamie Baxter; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; 'Steve Chan';
> gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Predictability - Section 1.2.2
>
>
>
> I would also point out that community applicants were not allowed to
> update their answers to pertinent questions nor allowed to clarify them
> even after the criteria changed.
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of
> *Jamie Baxter
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 17, 2018 4:04 PM
> *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>; Jeff Neuman <
> jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan at icann.org>;
> gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Predictability - Section 1.2.2
>
>
>
> Thanks for asking Anne.
>
>
>
> When the Applicant Guidebook was published, there was clear understanding
> (ie. predictability) for community applicants that they would be evaluated
> based on the details, definitions and guidance contained within the
> Applicant Guidebook. To no fault of the applicant, the Applicant Guidebook
> language was at times vague or flexible to interpretation to the extent
> that applicants could make reasoned interpretations. If that was not
> intended, then further definitions would have (or should have) been
> included in the guidebook to avoid misinterpretation of the language.
>
>
>
> There was never a suggestion in the guidebook that Community Priority
> Evaluation (CPE) providers would later be permitted to produce their own
> CPE guideline documents, or that the CPE providers would be given liberty
> to further narrow interpretation of guidebook language or further define
> words & phrases not previously defined in the guidebook. By doing this,
> many community applicants were immediately disadvantaged, presuming
> applicants should have been able to read the minds of the CPE providers
> prior to submitting their applications. The creation of CPE guidelines was
> a complete interruption of predictability, especially since the additional
> CPE documents were only produced after applications were submitted and
> published on the ICANN website for everyone to review (including the CPE
> providers themselves).
>
>
>
> My assertion here is that if details, words or guidance contained in the
> Applicants Guidebook require further clarification in order for the CPE
> providers to do their job, then that clarity must occur prior to all
> applications being submitted. Not doing so is in complete conflict with
> goals of predictability and may explain the low success rate of community
> applications in the 2012 round.
>
>
>
> Permitting additional CPE guidelines and documents during the 2012 round
> conflicts with Recommendations 1 & 9. I call this out specifically to
> ensure that it does not happen again in subsequent rounds.
>
>
>
> I hope that helps Anne.
>
> Jamie
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Predictability - Section 1.2.2
> From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com>
> Date: Tue, April 17, 2018 1:58 pm
> To: 'Jamie Baxter' <jamie at dotgay.com>, Jeff Neuman
> <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>, 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan at icann.org>,
> "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>
> I support Jamie’s changes. I don’t think CPE providers should be creating
> additional guidelines. If there is something valuable to the community in
> those additional guidelines, they should be added to the CPE process but
> only via consideration and adoption in this policy process, not on an “ad
> hoc” basis. Jamie, could you let us know what these additional ad hoc
> guidelines were?
>
> Anne
>
>
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
>
> Of Counsel
>
> 520.629.4428 office
>
> 520.879.4725 fax
>
> AAikman at lrrc.com
>
> _____________________________
>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
>
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>
> lrrc.com
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jamie Baxter [mailto:jamie at dotgay.com <jamie at dotgay.com>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 17, 2018 9:40 AM
> *To:* Jeff Neuman; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Steve Chan';
> gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Predictability - Section 1.2.2
>
>
>
> Jeff & Cheryl
>
>
>
> Below are my recommended edits (noted in red) to 1.2.2 to reflect the
> inclusion of Work Track 3's discussion about the additional CPE guidelines
> that were introduced by the CPE providers after community applications were
> submitted. When discussing examples of changes to the new gTLD program, I
> believe it is important to note that "additions" are also considered a
> change and are just as detrimental to predictability. As discussed in WT3,
> I believe such additions are in direct contradiction to Recommendations 1 &
> 9 and it is important to call it out here.
>
>
>
> Much thanks
>
> Jamie
>
>
>
>
>
> 1.2.2 Predictability
>
>
>
> *b. How was it implemented in the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program? *
>
>
>
> The Applicant Guidebook was intended to serve as the roadmap for
> applicants, observers to the program, and the ICANN Organization to
> operationalize and execute the program. That said, one of the most common
> complaints by new gTLD Applicants and ICANN Community members was that
> there were a number changes to the New gTLD Program and additional
> evaluation guideline documents created after the finalization of the
> Applicant Guidebook that led overall to a process that was far from
> predictable. Such changes included for example, changes to the New gTLD
> Registry Agreement, the addition of Public Interest Commitments, changes to
> the application prioritization process, changes implemented as a result of
> GAC Advice, changes to pre-delegation testing mechanisms, changes to launch
> mechanisms as result of name collision studies, and the creation of
> additional CPE guidelines prepared by the CPE providers to name a few.
>
>
>
> *c. What are the preliminary recommendations and/or implementation
> guidelines?*
>
>
>
> In addition to ensuring adherence to the GNSO’s *Consensus Policy
> Implementation Framework (CPIF)3*, the Working Group believes that the
> New gTLD Program, once launched (i.e., after the Implementation Review
> Team), should also be subject to a new *Predictability Framework, *to
> tackle issues that arise regarding the introduction of new gTLDs.
>
>
>
> Among other recommendations, the Working Group believes that as part of
> the Predictability Framework, a standing Implementation Review Team should
> be constituted after the publication of the Applicant Guidebook to consider
> changes in the implementation, execution and/or operations of the new gTLD
> program after its launch, and the introduction of any further evaluation
> guidelines not available to applicants when applications were submitted.
>
>
>
>
>
> *f. Deliberations *
>
>
>
> The Working Group (WG) discussed a number of examples where predictability
> was lacking in the 2012 round. Some examples include the development of
> implementation elements in the Applicant Guidebook where there was no
> existing policy recommendations, the changes to the base registry agreement
> after the launch of the program, the difficulty and confusion with
> Continuing Operations Instrument (COI), the Public Interest Commitments
> (PICs), name collisions, the introduction on additional CPE
> guidelines after community applications were submitted and numerous other
> examples. The WG acknowledges that some level of uncertainty is
> unavoidable, even with the absolute best planning and thinking done in
> advance. It is with that acknowledgement that the WG generally agreed that
> establishing a framework, *which allows for the disposition of post
> program launch issues in a predictable manner*, might be the best way to
> provide some level of certainty.
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Predictability - Section 1.2.2
> From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
> Date: Tue, April 17, 2018 10:20 am
> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com>, 'Steve Chan'
> <steve.chan at icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org"
> <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>
> Anne,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the thorough comments. I have renamed the e-mail Chain to
> reflect the Section of the Report and give my thoughts:
>
>
>
> 1. *Comment from Anne*: *Under Section 1.2.2 Predictability, item c.,
> Please add the following first sentence. “Currently, as a result of
> recommendations made by the GNSO, the ICANN Board implemented a process for
> issues that arise during the implementation phase that permits the GNSO to
> provide “GNSO Input” or “GNSO Guidance” on an issue or to advise the Board
> that the issue requires either a full or Expedited PDP. Guidelines for
> these processes are provided in the GNSO’s Consensus Policy Implementation
> Framework (“CPIF”). In the second sentence, please change “The Working
> Group believes that” to “there is support in the Working Group for a
> recommendation that”. *
>
>
>
> *Response from Jeff*: Good Suggestions. Can I offer the following
> slight tweaks:
>
>
>
> “Under Section 1.2.2 Predictability, item c., Please add the following
> first sentence. “Currently, as a result of consensus recommendations
> made by the GNSO, the ICANN Board implemented approved the GNSO’s
> Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (“CPIF”) {footnote to Framework} a
> process for issues that arise during the implementation phase of
> Consensus Policies. This that permits the GNSO to provide “GNSO Input”
> or “GNSO Guidance” on an issue or to advise the Board that the issue
> requires either a full or Expedited PDP {Insert Footnote to CPIF where
> definitions can be found for these terms}. Guidelines for these
> processes are provided in the GNSO’s Consensus Policy Implementation
> Framework (“CPIF”).”
>
>
>
> 1. *Comment from Anne:* In the second sentence, please change “The
> Working Group believes that” to “there is support in the Working Group for
> a recommendation that”.
>
>
>
> *Response from Jeff*: Agree with that change.
>
>
>
> 1. *Comment from Anne*: *In the section “Anticipated Outcome”, please
> add the following after the first sentence: “The existing CPIF also
> recognizes this fact and provides for three mechanisms that mandate a
> process for additional advice where issues arise.” However, many in the
> New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG are seeking to establish a
> supplemental framework (designed to apply when implementation is complete)
> which, even in the event of changes, etc etc.*”
>
>
>
> *Response from Jeff*: I think the second paragraph in that section along
> with the expansion of the discussion in the next section “Details of the
> Predictability Framework” does exactly what you recommend. Do you disagree?
>
>
>
> 1. *Comment from Anne*: In the last sentence in that section on
> “Anticipated Outcome”, the use of the term “after program launch” is
> unclear. “Launch” is a clear term as to a particular TLD. Acceptance of
> applications could be considered “launch” of the next round, but at that
> time, there would likely still be an IRT. What exactly do we mean by
> “implementation is considered complete” and who makes that determination?
>
>
>
> *Response from Jeff:* In the “Details of the Predictability Framework”
> Section, under Phase 3 we state: “For the purposes of the New gTLD Program,
> the effective date may better be considered as the date of
> program/Applicant Guidebook adoption by the ICANN Board or the opening of
> the application window.” How about we do the following:
>
> a. Put a footnote in the “Anticipated Outcome” section pointing to
> where we define “Launch”.
>
> b. Make it clear in the sentence referenced in Phase 3 above is our
> proposed definition of “Launch” and
>
> c. Add a question in the Feedback section that asks for comment on our
> definition of Launch.
>
>
>
> 1. *Comment from Anne**:* *In the Section “Details of the
> Predictability Framework”, please Delete a portion of the second sentence
> of this section after the word, “ambiguities” and insert the following:
> “The GNSO proposed and the Board adopted a process whereby the GNSO could
> provide additional input with respect to various issues which might arise
> in the implementation phase”. *Then begin the new sentence.* “The WG
> is considering proposing the addition of a fourth element to be known as
> the ‘Predictability Framework” etc etc. * (No need for underlining in
> the actual text – I show this only for emphasis on the requested changes.)
>
>
>
> *Response from Jeff*: I am a little confused as to why you are
> referring to it as a fourth element. The first element is policy
> development. The second is implementation (as covered by the CPIF). The
> Implementation Phase ends when the program is launched. Therefore, the
> third is this “Predictability Framework.” What am I missing? The
> Predictability Framework which envisions setting up a Standing IRT can
> refer things back to Phase 1 or Phase 2 at their discretion, but I re-read
> the CPIF and it does not necessarily apply once there is a launch of a
> program and changes to operations may need to be made. That is why we are
> creating this Framework in the first place as discussed on the numerous
> call. That said, I have no issue adding the work “considering” before the
> word “proposing” in that first paragraph.
>
>
>
> 1. *Comment from Anne*: Add the following to list of questions for
> feedback: *How do you see the proposed Predictability Framework
> interacting with the existing CPIF procedures known as GNSO Input, GNSO
> Guidance, and GNSO Expedited PDP? In other words, when would these
> processes be utilized and when would application of the Predictability
> Framework make more sense?*
>
>
>
> *Response from Jeff*: Makes sense. We will work that in.
>
>
>
> *Jeffrey J. Neuman*
>
> *Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
>
> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
>
> Mclean, VA 22102, United States
>
> E: *jeff.neuman at valideus.com <jeff.neuman at valideus.com>* or *jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
> <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>*
>
> T: +1.703.635.7514
>
> M: +1.202.549.5079
>
> @Jintlaw
>
>
>
> The following additions/changes are needed to avoid the conflict with
> existing ICANN Board adopted policy in this arena:
>
>
>
> *Under Section 1.2.2 Predictability, item c., Please add the following
> first sentence. “Currently, as a result of recommendations made by the
> GNSO, the ICANN Board implemented a process for issues that arise during
> the implementation phase that permits the GNSO to provide “GNSO Input” or
> “GNSO Guidance” on an issue or to advise the Board that the issue requires
> either a full or Expedited PDP. Guidelines for these processes are
> provided in the GNSO’s Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (“CPIF”).
> In the second sentence, please change “The Working Group believes that” to
> “there is support in the Working Group for a recommendation that”. *
>
>
>
> *In the section “Anticipated Outcome”, please add the following after the
> first sentence: “The existing CPIF also recognizes this fact and provides
> for three mechanisms that mandate a process for additional advice where
> issues arise.” However, many in the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG
> are seeking to establish a supplemental framework (designed to apply when
> implementation is complete) which, even in the event of changes, etc etc.*”
> In the last sentence in that section on “Anticipated Outcome”, the use of
> the term “after program launch” is unclear. “Launch” is a clear term as to
> a particular TLD. Acceptance of applications could be considered “launch”
> of the next round, but at that time, there would likely still be an IRT.
> What exactly do we mean by “implementation is considered complete” and who
> makes that determination?
>
>
>
> *In the Section “Details of the Predictability Framework”, please Delete
> a portion of the second sentence of this section after the word,
> “ambiguities” and insert the following: “The GNSO proposed and the Board
> adopted a process whereby the GNSO could provide additional input with
> respect to various issues which might arise in the implementation phase”. *Then
> begin the new sentence.* “The WG is considering proposing the addition
> of a fourth element to be known as the ‘Predictability Framework” etc etc.
> *(No need for underlining in the actual text – I show this only for
> emphasis on the requested changes.)
>
>
>
> *In the Section entitled “What specific questions are the PDP WG seeking
> feedback on?”, please add the following question:*
>
>
>
> - *How do you see the proposed Predictability Framework interacting
> with the existing CPIF procedures known as GNSO Input, GNSO Guidance, and
> GNSO Expedited PDP? In other words, when would these processes be utilized
> and when would application of the Predictability Framework make more sense?*
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Anne
>
>
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
>
> Of Counsel
>
> 520.629.4428 office
>
> 520.879.4725 fax
>
> AAikman at lrrc.com
>
> _____________________________
>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
>
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>
> lrrc.com
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Steve Chan
> *Sent:* Friday, April 13, 2018 8:39 PM
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent
> Procedures PDP WG - 16 April 2018 at 20:00 UTC
>
>
>
> Dear WG Members,
>
>
>
> Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent
> Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 16 April 2018 at 20:00 UTC, for
> 90 minutes.
>
>
>
> 1. Agenda Review
> 2. Roll Call/SOIs
> 3. Review of the Initial Report (continued)
> 4. AOB
>
>
>
> For item 3 of the agenda, we will be reviewing another section of the
> draft Initial Report. Attached, please find an extract of the section on
> Overarching Issues, which includes eight (8) topics.
>
>
>
> Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting
> information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these
> participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please
> contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs at icann.org).
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Steven Chan*
>
> Policy Director, GNSO Support
>
>
>
> *ICANN*
>
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
>
> Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
>
> steve.chan at icann.org
>
> mobile: +1.310.339.4410
>
> office tel: +1.310.301.5800
>
> office fax: +1.310.823.8649
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> 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.
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
--
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd
*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/
<http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180418/42ca4d6a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6496 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180418/42ca4d6a/image003-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180418/42ca4d6a/image002-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6501 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180418/42ca4d6a/image001-0001.png>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg
mailing list