[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 4 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC

Fri Jun 1 23:15:35 UTC 2018

Anne,

Responses inline.

> On 1 Jun 2018, at 19:30, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com> wrote:
> 
> Rubens,
> I will provide additional proposed text for 1.7.8 in the near future.
> 
> I was very disappointed to see that with respect to my recommended changes to 1.7.7 regarding the policy change in relation to Question 23 of the new gTLD application, your notes are essentially all  “change rejected”.    First I would like to comment that I have no personal stake in the outcome of the discussion as to whether or not new services known at the time of application must be disclosed in the new gTLD application.

I also have no personal stake in them, since both my day job and the revenue of my employer is 99.99% derived from ccTLD operations, although I don't see that as problem for leadership; we have members in the PDP leadership that might have personal stakes and even so for the last years I've never seen any of them putting a personal agenda ahead of the PDP progression effort.

> The sole purpose of my comment in the Work Track and in relation to the draft Initial Report is to highlight an issue that deserves discussion and public comment.  By its clear language ( and despite the fact that new services could always be proposed later if developed later) Question 23 required the disclosure of all new proposed services (and any related Security and Stability concerns or issues) concurrent with the filing of the new gTLD application.

It did, and nothing in the report said otherwise. "Registry Services Evaluation: Served to evaluate each application’s proposed registry services for any possible adverse impact to the security and stability of the DNS."

> "
> The Initial Report is supposed to accurately reflect discussions in the Work Track.  Please note Question 23 was very definitely discussed in the Work Track, but it does not even appear in the Initial Report  as an answer to how matters were handled in the 2012 round.  Your rejection of all my redline comments on this section pretends that these discussions did not go on.  In fact , they did go on and are well documented.

In technical and financial evaluation, we needed to accurately point questions since they consisted of multiple questions. Registry services consisted of a single question, question 23, and that's why we don't mention the number specifically in the report, since the focus is on content. The group definitively looked at the evaluation questions of all 3 evaluation types, and I don't see how the report as it stands could be read differently.

> In other words, even if these are minority views in the Work Track, they should be documented in the Initial Report.

Specifically in the case of registry services, what you describe as minority views ended up being the adopted views (requirement to identify services, for instance), so I don't see how we could describe them as minority instead of prevailing views. We had such a case in financial evaluation, and that is throughly documented.

> You may recall that you presented numerous slides on November 30 that were designated as “Rough Consensus” slides.   (These even included the word “Consensus” on practically every page.)  Later Leadership decided that nothing in the Working Group would be called a consensus at this point and no Consensus Call would be taken.   Yet you insist in a recent email that your “single model” presented in  San Juan represents the “consensus” and that all of the other discussion that went on in the Work Track is now irrelevant.   The requirements for an Initial Report are pasted below:

It was the model that was composed out of the discussion and a model that didn't had opposition during San Juan, as indicated in both transcription, audio recording and now the Adobe Connection session recording, which is again available. We didn't use the word consensus in San Juan exactly following leadership guidance, so mentioning old slides seems not applicable to this discussion.

> 
> <image004.png>
> 
> With your rejection of all my proposed changes on this issue, you have put me in the position as a “next step” in this process of having to appeal to the Leadership of the Working Group, in particular to Cheryl, who was Co-Leader of Work Track 4  who assured me on the calls that due account would be taken of comments made, and to Jeff, who assured me in his email to the Work Track 4 list on February 28 that the issues would be accurately captured by staff.

They are subscribed to the list.

> Either the Working Group is operating on the principle that Leadership manages the process so that all participants have the opportunity to contribute as is required by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Paragraph 2.2.1 or it is not.  The purpose of an Initial Report is to solicit public comment on issues, not to frame issues such that an outcome desired by a “majority” of Subgroup participants is achieved.

And still, the WT outcome suggested in the report is totally different from what my, in personal capacity and not as co-chair, opinion... so I'm puzzled why that outcome would imply steering of it. On the contrary, I see the final registry services model as being a mix of your's and Kurt Pritz's suggestions. Which is fine, I don't see this process as competition, and every step is taken to avoid ad-hominem evaluation. Something that I would like to see membership applying as well.

>  This is especially important where no Consensus Call has been made since the opportunity to make a published Minority Statement has been bypassed even though the PDP manual says that an Initial Report should include a statement of Consensus levels.

As the co-chairs already mentioned, minority statements are not part of the initial report, but will be part of the final report. Even so, some divergent ideas are indeed present in the report, without being officially called minority statements. In this particular case we can't have an idea that made it as main outcome also be a divergent position... it would be simply illogical.

Rubens

> 
> Regarding the role of Leadership, reference is made to the applicable Working Group Guidelines  below:
> 
> <image003.png>
> 
> 
> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
> Of Counsel
> 520.629.4428 office
> 520.879.4725 fax
> AAikman at lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>
> _____________________________
> <image002.png>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
> 
> 
> From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk at nic.br <mailto:rubensk at nic.br>]
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2018 1:50 PM
> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
> Cc: Steve Chan; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 4 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC
> 
> 
> Anne,
> 
> Follows a response for all WT4 items in 1.7. Note that one item is not WT4 so WT2 leadership can answer on it, and some of the WT4 items suggested that different text could be proposed. You might want to take advantage of the opportunity to do so.
> 
> 
> Rubens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/20180601/399c328d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 529 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180601/399c328d/signature-0001.asc>