[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Reminder of Meetings this Week / Panama Schedule

Mon Jun 11 22:09:15 UTC 2018

Hi Christopher,
There were a lot of potential “pros” and “cons” listed in the draft Initial Report.  This is because the GAC advice is to the effect that if there is an award for a “closed” or “exclusive” generic term, then that TLD must be awarded and operated “in the public interest”.    I suppose that is why there are questions and why it is seen as contentious.
Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office

520.879.4725 fax

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

_____________________________

[cid:image003.png at 01D40196.285A5D80]

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

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

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of lists at christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 2:47 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org; Jim Prendergast; Jeff Neuman
Cc: Drazek, Keith
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Reminder of Meetings this Week / Panama Schedule

Good eveniong:

> this is one of the most contentious issues ...

In what respect? THE Board decision on the last round seems to me to be quite enough.

1.  If the applicant has an uncontested right to a name, then Okay, but I fail to see what the business model or other advantages might be.

2.  If the application is for a Closed TLD on the basis of a name (dictionary, Geographical or other) to which the applicant has NO prior right, then NO.

CW

El 11 de junio de 2018 a las 22:58 Jim Prendergast <jim at GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim at GALWAYSG.COM>> escribió:

Ok – that does help – thanks

From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 4:39 PM
To: Jim Prendergast <jim at GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim at GALWAYSG.COM>>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Cc: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>
Subject: RE: Reminder of Meetings this Week / Panama Schedule

Thanks Jim.  Of course we will wait and incorporate all of the feedback we get from the public comment period.  After all that the purpose of the public comment period.  The purpose of the face to face meetings in Panama are “to develop the tools we need to complete our work”.  So the topic is not what IS (OR WILL BE) our position on this highly contentious issue.  But, what are some of the tools we can use at our disposal (or that we need from elsewhere) to get to a final recommendation.  In other words, it is a strategic planning exercise, on how we as a group can get to the final report with a recommendation that of course incorporates all feedback.  Another way to look at this is how can we incentivize the group to get to a final recommendation.

I hope that helps.

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

T: +1.703.635.7514

M: +1.202.549.5079

@Jintlaw

From: Jim Prendergast <jim at GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim at GALWAYSG.COM>>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 3:52 PM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Cc: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>
Subject: RE: Reminder of Meetings this Week / Panama Schedule

Thanks Jeff.

Have one question on the closed generics issue.  The way you have it written seems to put the cart before the horse.

As the draft preliminary report stated, this is one of the most contentious issues we have on our plate with a wide range of opinions and no clear indication of consensus.  And as a result, we are putting several questions and options out to the community for their feedback.  Feedback meant to inform the deliberations of this group.

How does this group “move towards a final proposal” in a few weeks’ time without waiting for the feedback we are asking for?   I fear that if we did that, it sends a terrible signal to the broader community that while we are asking for their feedback, we are not really interested in it and are moving on without it.

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 3:06 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Cc: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Reminder of Meetings this Week / Panama Schedule

Dear SubPro WG Members and Observers,

First, we wanted to remind you that this week we will have 2 Full Working Group calls and one call the week of June 18th to finalize all of the materials for the Preliminary Report.   The calls are at:

  *   Tuesday, June 12:  03:00 UTC (For those in the US, that means 11:00 pm on the East Coast and 8:00 pm on the West Coast tonight)
  *   Thursday, June 14: 20:00 UTC
  *   Monday, June 18:  15:00 UTC

Second, as you are aware, we are fast approaching ICANN 62 in Panama in just a few short weeks.  The entire leadership team is actively preparing for our scheduled 5 face to face sessions.  Those sessions are currently scheduled for:

  *   SubPro WG Work Tracks 1-4 Session 1: Monday, June 25:  9:00 – 10:15 (Local Panama Time)
  *   SubPro WG Work Tracks 1-4 Session 2: Monday, June 25:  10:30 – 12:00 (Local Panama Time)
  *   SubPro WG Work Track 5 Session 1: Monday, June 25: 15:15 – 16:45 (Local Panama Time)
  *   SubPro WG Work Tracks 1-4 Session 3: Thursday, June 28: 13:30 – 15:00 (Local Panama Time)
  *   SubPro WG Work Track 5 Session 2:  Thursday, June 28:  15:15 – 16:45 (Local Panama Time)

The leadership team is aware that there are a number of conflicting sessions that have been scheduled during the times that we are scheduled to meet and that as a result many of you will be in a position of having to decide which sessions to attend.  We sincerely hope that you can attend all of our meetings.

Because this is the Policy Forum, a meeting that is structured to further our policy development work, we are planning some critical interactive sessions that will enable us as a group to move forward with some of our most contentious issues.  Although the Initial Report will hopefully be out by the time that we are in Panama, there is still a lot of work ahead of us as we hit the home stretch working towards a final report.   Completion of our Final Report is a key gating item before the implementation work for the next application window for new gTLDs to begin.  As a reminder, the plan is to publish the Initial Report before Panama, but not start the Public Comment period prior to the ICANN Meeting.  We will likely start the comment period the week after the ICANN meeting.  We will discuss this again on the call tonight/tomorrow.

With respect to Work Tracks 1-4, the leadership team will likely be finalizing the list of topics to be discussed over the next week, but those topics are likely to include: (a) working towards a final proposal on exclusive use / closed generic TLDs, (b) the use of Private Auctions to resolve string contention, and (c) working on deliverables expected to be delivered to us by the CCT Review Team.  We will likely be breaking up into smaller groups during the scheduled sessions to provide everyone with the opportunity to weigh in on these topics and to develop the tools we need to complete our work.  The sessions in Panama will be the only chance to do this in a face to face setting and will be used to decide how we move ahead.

For Work Track 5, the four Co-Leaders will be reaching out to you all shortly on its finalized agendas.

We understand that you have some difficult choices on how to prioritize your time at ICANN 62 and sincerely hope that you attend our sessions.  There will be recordings, notes and transcripts from all of the meetings and if you are unable to attend, you will still nonetheless be expected to have reviewed those materials before our next meeting after ICANN 62.

Best regards,

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

Jeff Neuman

SubPro PDP Co-Chairs

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

T: +1.703.635.7514

M: +1.202.549.5079

@Jintlaw

_______________________________________________
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

________________________________

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/20180611/34b9324f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6488 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180611/34b9324f/image003-0001.png>