[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017
theo geurts
gtheo at xs4all.nl
Mon Jan 1 21:13:03 UTC 2018
I think we are overstepping the scope of the WG here. Is this WG going
to decide on business models? If that is the case, I think this WG
should inform the GNSO and make sure we are within scope.
Thanks,
Theo Geurts
Theo
On 1-1-2018 21:19, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Dear All,
> First of all Happy new years to all .
>
> While I agree with Christopher and Vanda ,in principle , however,
> this should be further explored and discussed
> .
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br
> <mailto:rubensk at nic.br>> wrote:
>
>
> Vanda,
>
> I believe Katrin and Maxim were disagreeing with Christopher; just
> for clarity, do you believe that GeoTLDs should be required to be
> non-profit operations and have registration restrictions (like
> Christopher suggested) or to not have any of such requirements
> (like Katrin and Maxim suggested) ?
>
>
> Rubens
>
>
>
>
>
>> Em 28 de dez de 2017, à(s) 17:52:000, Vanda Scartezini
>> <vanda at scartezini.org <mailto:vanda at scartezini.org>> escreveu:
>>
>> Totally agree with Christopher, the cities in my country are not
>> to intend to be not for profit
>>
>> Vanda Scartezini
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> Sorry for typos
>>
>> On 28 Dec 2017, at 11:11, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH
>> <ohlmer at dotzon.com <mailto:ohlmer at dotzon.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>> BG,
>>> Katrin
>>>
>>> DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow
>>> Akazienstrasse 28
>>> 10823 Berlin
>>> Deutschland - Germany
>>> Tel: +49 30 49802722 <tel:+49%2030%2049802722>
>>> Fax: +49 30 49802727 <tel:+49%2030%2049802727>
>>> Mobile: +49 173 2019240 <tel:+49%20173%202019240>
>>> ohlmer at dotzon.consulting <mailto:ohlmer at dotzon.consulting>
>>> www.dotzon.consulting <http://www.dotzon.consulting/>
>>>
>>> DOTZON GmbH
>>> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598
>>> Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer
>>> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin
>>> *Von:*Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>]*Im Auftrag von*Maxim
>>> Alzoba
>>> *Gesendet:*Donnerstag, 28.Dezember 2017 08:05
>>> *An:*lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
>>> <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
>>> *Cc:*
>>> *Betreff:*Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New
>>> gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017
>>> Dear Cristopher,
>>> I do not think we need to prescribe the form of the entities for
>>> GEOs.
>>> Legal form of GEO applicant does not have to be non-for profit
>>> (it does not work in cases. where municipal entity decides to
>>> run tender, where the highest bidder is allowed
>>> to have a letter of support from the city). Also costs are also
>>> the same (except for taxation) for commercial entities.
>>> And since municipal entities represent large populations of
>>> people (and usually heads of cities are elected),
>>> they represent public interest in GEOs, and non non-for profits
>>> applying for the job.
>>> In the cases where the municipal entity acts on it's own as an
>>> applicant - they can not be non-for profit and also can not follow
>>> all the text in the RA (after all cities follow national law,
>>> which usually is quite prescriptive in the areas of what cities
>>> can and can not do).
>>> As for Registration Restrictions - not necessary GEOs will use
>>> it (they are already limited by the local persons interest (most
>>> probably citizens of other areas do not need it)
>>> , and there is no need to make it worse).
>>> If an entity can not bear the costs, it does not matter, which
>>> legal form was used before it
>>> loses ability to run Registry business, so I am not sure why we
>>> need to have two different approaches to the evaluation.
>>> Short list of costs: COI instrument, contracts with ISPs with
>>> DDoS protection, rack space for hardware in at least two
>>> datacenters, salary for engineers/office, Secondary DNS Anycast
>>> cloud services, office rent costs, legal advice cost - talking
>>> to ICANN Compliance might need it e.t.c ... or the procurement
>>> of all/some of those services from the backend providers (RSPs).
>>> My thinking is that financial model evaluation was more an
>>> abstract test then real model used later by Registries, so it is
>>> not known if it was useful, and audits of newly created legal
>>> entities can not show the future of the entity (though it might
>>> be helpful for old ones).
>>> In the current round thorough research did not help with
>>> predictions of ICANN's actions / lack of actions and I do not think
>>> that it will help in the next one.
>>> Sincerely Yours,
>>>
>>> Maxim Alzoba
>>> Special projects manager,
>>> International Relations Department,
>>> FAITID
>>>
>>> m. +7 916 6761580 <tel:+7%20916%20676-15-80>(+whatsapp)
>>> skype oldfrogger
>>> Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
>>>
>>> On Dec 27, 2017, at 22:10,lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
>>> <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>wrote:
>>> Dear Emily:
>>> 1.Re: Potential TLD types/categories
>>> It is not clear what is meant by ‘carve-out’. Regarding
>>> Geo-Names, I consider that they should be generally Not for
>>> Profit, in the public interests in the areas that they
>>> serve. They would normally have Registration Restrictions,
>>> for instance, location based.
>>> Regarding evaluation criteria, I consider that much more
>>> stringent economic considerations should be applied
>>> generally to ‘for profit’ proposals. This is not a
>>> ‘carve-out’ but a general requirement.
>>> 2.Framework of Predictability:I recall that during the
>>> previous round, a source of ‘unpredictability’ was the lack
>>> of understanding by applicants of the policy context with
>>> which they were engaging at local, national and
>>> international level. For applicants to reduce
>>> unpredictability, I would recommend much more thorough
>>> research before applying.
>>> In this context, the use of the word ‘generic’ is
>>> increasingly misleading. We should avoid any suggestion that
>>> the default is ‘generic’ and that anything else is a
>>> ‘carve-out’.
>>> On the contrary, nearly all categories show specific
>>> characteristics of their own. These are not ‘carve outs’ but
>>> rather distinct categories.
>>> Regards
>>> Christopher Wilkinson
>>>
>>> On 21 Dec 2017, at 20:18, Emily Barabas
>>> <emily.barabas at icann.org
>>> <mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org>> wrote:
>>> Dear Working Group members,
>>> On the 11 December Working Group call, the co-chairs
>>> invited Working Group members to provide input on two
>>> items over the mailing list. This note serves as a
>>> reminder of the issues for which they are seeking comments.
>>> On the call, the WG reviewed the status of conversations
>>> regarding potential TLD types/categories for subsequent
>>> procedures
>>> (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=0
>>> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=0>).
>>> Your input is encouraged on the following questions:
>>>
>>> * Is it critical to carve out exceptions for some of
>>> the identified types? If so, what are the *pros/cons
>>> *for carving out specific mechanisms to accommodate
>>> any of the proposed types?
>>> * If there are *critical exceptions* needed for any of
>>> the proposed types, please help identify what they
>>> might be (e.g., applicant eligibility criteria,
>>> evaluation criteria/process, contractual
>>> requirements, etc.).
>>>
>>> The WG touched briefly on the Framework for
>>> Predictability
>>> (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81tfQ/edit#heading=h.8pcr95hvmmz
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81tfQ/edit#heading=h.8pcr95hvmmz>),
>>> which is intended to balance ICANN Org’s ability to
>>> operate in an effective manner while ensuring the
>>> community is properly consulted when issues arise. Your
>>> input is requested on the following:
>>>
>>>
>>> * What are some use cases we can apply against the
>>> framework to test how it would work in practice?
>>>
>>> For background, please see the attached slides for the
>>> call. In order to help the Working Group progress
>>> deliberations on this topic, please share your thoughts
>>> on the mailing list prior to the next full Working Group
>>> call on 8 January 2018.
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Emily
>>> *From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg
>>> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of
>>> Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org
>>> <mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org>>
>>> *Date:*Monday 11 December 2017 at 12:11
>>> *To:*"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>"
>>> <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>>
>>> *Subject:*[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New
>>> gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11
>>> December 2017
>>> Dear Working Group members,
>>> Please find below notes and action items from the call
>>> today. These high-level notes are designed to help
>>> Working Group members navigate through the content of
>>> the call and are not a substitute for the chat
>>> transcript or the recording. The call recording, call
>>> transcript, and chat transcript will soon be available
>>> here:https://community.icann.org/x/SQxyB[community.icann.org]
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_SQxyB&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=JEW8DnUXx2bEgewpLq4ebIZVMtuhZshCB5JwVdtHj4Y&s=pE0ABBF34dzGWetkfjMphb2NWNS_azPVgS-tWeASZUY&e=>.
>>> Some excerpts from the chat room are included in the
>>> notes. Please see the chat transcript for a full record
>>> of chat comments.
>>> Slides are attached for reference.
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Emily
>>> *ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs will contact Ombudsman regarding
>>> concerns raised on this call.*
>>> 1. SOI Updates
>>> - no updates
>>> 2. Work Track Updates
>>> - Work Track 1 - next call on 19 Dec will cover systems,
>>> communications, and application queuing
>>> - Work Track 2 - There was a WT2 call last week which
>>> covered Contractual Compliance and TLD Rollout
>>> and CC2 comments on these topics. The next call is 21
>>> December - the call will focus on reviewing strawman
>>> recommendations prepared by the co-leads.
>>> - Work Track 3 - Next meeting is on 12 December at 15:00
>>> UTC. WT3 will discuss Community Applications and Objections.
>>> - Work Track 4 - Next meeting
>>> will be 14 December at 3:00 UTC. The call will focus on
>>> the applicant reviews with a
>>> focus on applicant financial models.
>>> - Work Track 5 - WT5 had a meeting last Wednesday in
>>> which it discussed the Terms of Reference. In the next
>>> meeting on 20 December, the WT will do a second reading
>>> on the TOR document.
>>> - Some GAC members were surprised by the response to
>>> the GAC conditions for participation in WT5. The GAC
>>> may provide a response on this issue.
>>> - Request to return to issue of participation model
>>> contained in the Terms of Reference on the upcoming call.
>>> - Additional work will need to be done to come to
>>> agreement on the Terms of Reference.
>>> - There is a single Chartering Organization in
>>> the PDP, which is the GNSO. Measures have been put into
>>> place to ensure that all voices are heard in WT5.
>>> Chat excerpt:
>>> *kavouss Arasteh: *I do not agree with your conclusions
>>> *kavouss Arasteh: *The issue of Georaphic name isc much
>>> beyound the leadership of GNSO
>>> *kavouss Arasteh: *The issue is
>>> disagreement on whether PDP is relevant here
>>> *kavouss Arasteh: *There seems
>>> to be that our concerns are not heard
>>> *Greg Shatan: *This is a GNSO
>>> PDP Working Group. That is a
>>> fundamental fact. The issue
>>> of gTLD policy is the raisin d’etre for the GNSO.
>>> *kavouss Arasteh: *It is a cross community issue and not
>>> GNSO issue
>>> *Greg Shatan: *That is certainly your opinion, and
>>> thank you for your personal views.
>>> *kavouss Arasteh: *I am speaking from my own side here
>>> *Robin Gross: *We need to follow the rules, not break
>>> them in order to privilege one of the groups that isn't
>>> happy with them.
>>> *kavouss Arasteh: *WHAT Rules Dear Mdam
>>> *kavouss Arasteh: *MADAM'
>>> *Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): *in any case GEO TLDs had to
>>> obtain letter of approval
>>> from the relevant local/federal governmental body
>>> *Greg Shatan: *Robin, we don’t
>>> know that any group is asking for that. Only a single
>>> member of a group.
>>> *Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): *or
>>> letter of non objection from the same governmental body
>>> *kavouss Arasteh: *It is not
>>> surprising that you want the domination of GNSO with its
>>> PDP Rules to be applied to Geographic names
>>> *Steve Chan: *As referenced by Cheryl, GNSO Operating
>>> Procedures, which are inclusive of the GNSO Working
>>> Group Guidelines and PDP Manual:
>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_op-2Dprocedures-2D01sep16-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=FN3L848cy2TmbBFv_xNVZIBUc--golVeGZZ7sSUJNxg&s=aqeivPdCVM1wsLkCttYXF2a-EUgTAXgXApliix4nTdU&e=>
>>> *kavouss Arasteh: *Geographic
>>> names are not the property of
>>> any group. It belongs to the citizen of all countries
>>> *Greg Shatan: *Cheryl is a member of ALAC. Not sure how
>>> that contributes to anyone’s lack of surprise.
>>> *Martin Sutton: *@ Kavous - the GNSO is the vehicle for
>>> addressing the policy issue
>>> but allows all to be involved. All concerns and views are
>>> taken into consideration. Ultimately, all of the 4
>>> leading groups and other advisory groups will have
>>> further opportunities to comment on any output from WT5.
>>> *Greg Shatan: *Kavouss, your
>>> personal views on that matter have been amply stated and
>>> heard.
>>> *kavouss Arasteh: *Dear Greg,
>>> we have difference of view in that subject
>>> - The unique nature of WT5 was designed to provide
>>> leadership balance in recognition of the importance
>>> of this issue in different parts of the community
>>> 3. Overarching Issue: Application Types
>>> - Status Quo - Different Types in 2012: Standard
>>> application, community-based
>>> application, geographic names, specification 13 (.Brand)
>>> Chat excerpt:
>>> *Kurt Pritz: *I think we might distinquish between the
>>> policy-based (i.e., in the Guidebook) categories:
>>> Community and Geographic; vs
>>> thise that were inserted via independent discussion
>>> afterward:
>>> *Donna Austin, Neustar: *Can we
>>> spell out NGPC please for some that weren't around in 2012
>>> *Steve Chan: *NGPC = New gTLD Program Committee. Thanks
>>> Donna for the reminder.
>>> *Heather Forrest: *I agree that
>>> it is sensible to make the distinction that Kurt has
>>> raised between community policy-based and independent
>>> agreement
>>> *kavouss Arasteh: *There is no
>>> clear description on community
>>> *kavouss Arasteh: *If there is what is that?
>>> *kavouss Arasteh: *There is nalso no clear idea on how
>>> communities requirements to be compared with each other
>>> *Kurt Pritz: *My point earlier
>>> was that there is consensus policy on geo and Community
>>> categories and no consensus
>>> policy on closed generics and
>>> brands so the latter "categories" deseverve more
>>> discussion and should not be considered a status quo
>>> consensus policy
>>> - Work Track related efforts: WT2 is considering Closed
>>> Generics, WT3 is considering Community applications, and
>>> WT5 is considering Geographic Names
>>> - On slide 6, AGB section 2.2.1.4.2 is mentioned in the
>>> slides, but additional sections of the AGB also
>>> address geographic names, and
>>> these will also fall within the scope of WT5 discussions.
>>> Chat excerpt:
>>> *kavouss Arasteh: *Could one consider drug traffic group
>>> as a community?i
>>> *Jim Prendergast: *While we did
>>> have some lenghty disucssions on closed generics in WT2,
>>> there is still some healthy
>>> oppostion to the concept so I dont know how settled that
>>> issue is.
>>> *Robin Gross: *I suppose a pharmacy group could apply as
>>> a community.
>>> *kavouss Arasteh: *Those issues
>>> were written some 10 years ago and situation has changed
>>> drastically
>>> *Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): *AGB
>>> might change as result f some PDP work
>>> *Marc Palau: *What about family
>>> names? that's not an strict community
>>> *Marc Palau: *like .kim
>>> *Steve Chan: *@Kavouss, the
>>> description of the AGB was to
>>> set the stage and to identify
>>> what took place in the 2012
>>> round. As Maxim notes, things
>>> can change in the future as a result of the work of this
>>> PDP.
>>> *Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): *it
>>> might depend on wealth of the family
>>> *Greg Shatan: *@Maxim, exactly;
>>> that is why this PDP exists....
>>> *kavouss Arasteh: *Dear Colleagues, I am eligible to
>>> raise questions without being
>>> criticized or repressed is it not so?
>>> *avri doria: *Aren't there also
>>> other conditions in the AGB against crimminal behaviors
>>> and activities?
>>> *kavouss Arasteh: *We need to revisit the definition of
>>> community and revist various
>>> categories of communioties as
>>> they are not having the same conditions
>>> *Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): *I think GAC advise might play
>>> it's role irto prevent such bad actor's communities
>>> *kavouss Arasteh: *As soon as we raise a legitimate
>>> question , an valanch of disagreement comes up without
>>> giving a convincing argument
>>> - Work Track 3 is still working to define community.
>>> One thing we can say confidently is that however
>>> we define community, it will
>>> need to be in support of the public interest.
>>> - There are conditions in the AGB against criminal
>>> activities.
>>> - If there is no consensus on
>>> recommendations for change in this PDP, the status quo
>>> remains.
>>> - Review of attributes for current application types.
>>> - Null Hypothesis: If we changed nothing in the
>>> approach to categories in the
>>> AGB for Subsequent Procedures, would there be a problem?
>>> - We may not need new categories, but there may
>>> need to be tweaks to the AGB regarding the relevant
>>> sections of the guidebook
>>> - .Brands are not in
>>> consensus policy, for example, so we would need to tidy
>>> that up. Discussions on Closed Generics are still underway.
>>> Chat excerpt:
>>> *Kurt Pritz: *If we change nothing in the Guidebook,
>>> there are no brand TLDs and no restrictions on closed
>>> generics - there is no consensus policies on these
>>> *Greg Shatan: *@Kurt, why would
>>> keeping the status quo AGB result in changes in
>>> implementation?
>>> *Greg Shatan: *We can add those
>>> to consensus policy, but the lack of consensus policy
>>> doesn’t roll back implementation.
>>> - . Brands are not covered in
>>> previous policy, so we would
>>> need to work that into future application processes
>>> Chat excerpt:
>>> *Kurt Pritz: *@ Greg: Are you
>>> advocating that the GB remail
>>> silent on Brands and closed generics but conducting the
>>> round in the same way?
>>> *Kurt Pritz: *I agree with Martin - the next round must
>>> encourage innovation by developing a flexible
>>> approach to accommodating new models
>>> *Kurt Pritz: *I think categorization is rigid and
>>> exclusionary (is that a word)
>>> *Martin Sutton: *Good point Donna - I agree that
>>> innovation should not be stifled through
>>> categorisation where it is not needed
>>> *Christopher Wilkinson: *@AGB
>>> It is already clear that the definition of Geo-Names and
>>> associated decision making policies will have to evolve
>>> - It is important to reflect on what we witnessed in the
>>> 2012 Round. We cannot predict
>>> everything. For any new types
>>> that emerge, there will be an opportunity to evolve the
>>> system, but it is difficult to predict this now.
>>> - We should also include generic as a category. It is
>>> intentionally broad. There were some things that
>>> happened after the application process closed
>>> that had an impact, and additional restrictions put
>>> in place following GAC Advice. There was no harm done by
>>> not having additional categories.
>>> - The GAC Advice could have been viewed as restrictive
>>> and reduced innovation
>>> - If we create too many rules or parameters around
>>> categories, we could further stifle innovation. We don't
>>> want to do that.
>>> -Slide 12: Preliminary List of Types (beyond existing)
>>> - Wouldn't it possible to address differences in
>>> different applications through specifications to the
>>> base agreement rather than creating categories, since
>>> these categories may have overlapping requirements.
>>> This seems to be a simpler approach. Are there any
>>> issues with this approach?
>>> Chat excerpt:
>>> *Robin Gross: *4 seems to lump
>>> two different groups together. Highly regulated industries
>>> have nothing to do with words
>>> that others may be "sensitive" to hearing.
>>> *Steve Chan: *@Robin, I believe
>>> that lumping together carries from GAC Advice. That of
>>> course would not prevent this WG from decoupling the two
>>> types.
>>> *Robin Gross: *Thanks, Steve.
>>> I think we wouldn't want to lump them together.
>>> *Kurt Pritz: *With regards to status quo and Cheryl’s
>>> mantra that if we don’t arrive at a consensus for
>>> change, we are left to the stars quo: we don’t have a
>>> policy on brands and closed generics and they are not in
>>> the Guidebook. It is not that
>>> I am against Brand TLDs, it is that I think the
>>> accommodations provided brands could also be afforded
>>> that don’t own trademarks but that deserve and need them
>>> for there business model. This should be discussed as a
>>> consensus policy
>>> - Agree that there may be different applications that
>>> warrant different provisions that might not upset the
>>> existing policy. It is possible to provide
>>> accommodations as needed for applications where it is
>>> appropriate.
>>> Chat excerpt:
>>> *kavouss Arasteh: *I am referring to decision making
>>> process in Geo Names
>>> *kavouss Arasteh: *Is there any
>>> hope that such concerns be addressed?
>>> *Donna Austin, Neustar: *@Kavouss, it would be great if
>>> you could give the process a chance.
>>> *Annebeth Lange,WT5: *The
>>> problem, Kavouss, as I see it, is that GNSO, according to
>>> the bylaws of ICANN. is responsible for the new gTLD
>>> policy. So how to have a "true" cross community PDP, I
>>> am not sure how we can achieve this under the
>>> present bylaws. However, we should try to trust the
>>> process and see what can be achieved.
>>> *Donna Austin, Neustar: *@Annebeth, WT5 is a pro-active
>>> attempt to have a true cross
>>> community PDP and it is truly
>>> appreciated that the SO/ACs have responded positively to
>>> the request to participate.
>>> *Annebeth Lange,WT5: **Donna, I
>>> agree. However, even if that is what is the intention,
>>> still many do not feel that it is a "true" CCWG. I trust
>>> the process, but there is still a feeling of "someone
>>> matters more than others" out there, unfortunately.
>>> *Donna Austin, Neustar: *@Annebeth, appreciate your
>>> thoughts and hopefully we can
>>> work together to dispell the myths.
>>> - One of the challenges is that there are 8 potential
>>> types of TLDs in the slides,
>>> and there would be more with
>>> geo, communities, and brands. If you develop different
>>> policies for each type, the administration will be
>>> significant. It will be harder to move through the
>>> process in a streamlined manner. It is also difficult
>>> on the backend for contractual compliance.
>>> Should the group consider the
>>> value, what are we trying to achieve, and what the
>>> potential impact will be.
>>> - The hope is that the full group conversation will
>>> provide additional input to the WTs that are considering
>>> some of the questions around categorization
>>> - Future Application Types - Potential Attributes (slide 13)
>>> - Attributes Matrix (slides 14, 15, 16)
>>> - Pros and Cons of categorization in general (slide 17)
>>> - Homework (slide 18): Share
>>> on the list if you believe it is critical to carve out
>>> exceptions for some of the identified types. WG members
>>> can help to identify pros/cons for specific proposed
>>> types and identify critical exceptions for specific
>>> proposed types
>>> - More homework (slide 20): WG members are encouraged to
>>> prposed use cases to test the predictability framework.
>>> . AOB
>>> - none
>>> *Emily Barabas*| Senior Policy Specialist
>>> *ICANN*| Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>>> Email:emily.barabas at icann.org
>>> <mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org>| Phone: +31 (0)6
>>> 84507976 <tel:+31%206%2084507976>
>>> <Application Types_11Dec2017
>>> v3.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>> <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
>>> <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
>>> <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
>> <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
> <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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180101/6540e886/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg
mailing list