[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018
Ken Stubbs
kstubbs at afilias.info
Sat Jun 16 02:03:54 UTC 2018
I have to agree with Anne here.
It appears that this is being locked down almost "arbitrarily".
Optically, this does not seem like the right thing to do. I almost
feels like the report is being
pushed thru with this timeline out of some sort of "desperation".
This has to be viewed by the community as being a truly "deliberative"
product and we seriously risk
that perception.
This is not the right decision to take at this point..
Ken Stubbs
On 6/15/18 18:06, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
>
> Thanks Jeff. Why are we “locking down” the report before the meeting
> in Panama? It seems odd to foreclose discussion on finalizing the
> draft when the WG will have SO LITTLE TIME to review revisions (and
> the introductory statement requested some time ago) before you post to
> the Wiki on June 20 as a “locked down” version.
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
>
> Of Counsel
>
> 520.629.4428 office
>
>
> 520.879.4725 fax
>
> AAikman at lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>
>
> _____________________________
>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
>
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>
> lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
>
>
> *From:*Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 15, 2018 2:09 PM
> *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Vanda Scartezini'; 'Julie Hedlund';
> gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018
>
> All,
>
> As discussed on several of the calls, the plan is to have the document
> posted prior to the ICANN Meeting in Panama. Because of the rules
> about when things can go “out for comment” and because it would look
> horrible to put something formally out for comment just a couple of
> days before the meeting begins, the formal comment period cannot begin
> until after the ICANN meeting. There is no intent for us to continue
> discussions on the Initial Report or to solicit comments on the
> Initial Report in Panama. In essence, the report is locked down. We
> have lots of other work to do in the Panama sessions as has been
> discussed on the calls. They do not involve seeking further input on
> the Initial Report.
>
> I think it may be helpful to notify your community when we do post the
> Initial report that it has been posted and that starting on July 2^nd
> or 3^rd comments will begin to be accepted. This way they not only
> have the 60 day or so public comment period, but they also have the
> extra week and a half or so to work on the comments.
>
> Thanks.
>
> *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:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> *On Behalf Of
> *Aikman-Scalese, Anne
> *Sent:* Friday, June 15, 2018 3:32 PM
> *To:* 'Vanda Scartezini' <vanda at scartezini.org
> <mailto:vanda at scartezini.org>>; 'Julie Hedlund'
> <julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>;
> gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018
>
> If we are inviting input from the rest of the community that is NOT in
> the WG during the Sub Pro Meetings in Panama, then I get the reason
> for posting on the Wiki. Is that what is happening? Or are the Sub
> Pro sessions in Panama meant for continued WG deliberations without
> soliciting community input at that time?
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
>
> Of Counsel
>
> 520.629.4428 office
>
>
> 520.879.4725 fax
>
> AAikman at lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>
>
> _____________________________
>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
>
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>
> lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
>
>
> *From:*Vanda Scartezini [mailto:vanda at scartezini.org]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 15, 2018 7:39 AM
> *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018
>
> Guess Anne has a point. We should post for the public comment at same
> time, with more discussions during Panama.
>
> Best regards,
>
> */Vanda Scartezini/*
>
> */Polo Consultores Associados/*
>
> */Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004/*
>
> */01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil/*
>
> */Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253/*
>
> */Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 /*
>
> */Sorry for any typos. /*
>
> *From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of
> "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>
> *Date: *Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 19:18
> *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org
> <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>, "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: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018
>
> Jeff and Cheryl,
>
> The Work Plan says we will share the full Initial Report on the Wiki
> on June 20 – prior to the ICANN meeting. I don’t see how we can say
> that this Working Group will have arrived at an agreed Initial Report
> by that time. Why are we sharing the report on the Wiki long before
> it is put out for public comment on July 3? Shouldn’t the WG be
> finalizing the version of the Initial Report that it wants to approve
> for public comment in the course of meetings at ICANN62?
>
> Maybe I don’t understand what is meant by publication of the report on
> the Wiki. That seems premature. I don’t think we will have agreement.
>
> Anne
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
>
> Of Counsel
>
> 520.629.4428 office
>
>
> 520.879.4725 fax
>
> AAikman at lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>
>
> _____________________________
>
> 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 *Julie Hedlund
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 14, 2018 3:05 PM
> *To:* 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 WG - 14 June 2018
>
> Dear Working Group members,
>
> Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today,
> 14June 2018. /These high-level notes are designed to help WG members
> navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for
> the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted
> at://https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-06-14+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP.
> /
>
> Please also see the attached referenced documents.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *Action Items:*
>
> _1.8.1: Objections, Section e_:
>
> Action Item 1: Re: "A transparent process for ensuring that panelists,
> evaluators, and independent objectors are free from conflicts of
> interest must be developed." Add a question in Section e: concerning
> who would administer the conflict of interest process; cite current
> mechanism and ask if others are necessary.
>
> Action Item 2: Legal Rights Objections: provide explanation in the
> question concerning the use of the term "infringement".
>
> Action Item 3: Re: delay in the process (question) of course an
> objection is supposed to delay the process -- the question needs to be
> reformulated.
>
> Action Item 4: Re: string confusion resulting from exact translations
> of existing TLDs -- concerns received from the community that were
> shared with the Work Track that said that exact translations of
> existing strings in highly regulated sectors that don't apply the same
> safeguards -- need to add a question for feedback.
>
> Action Item 5: Clarify the question on Legal Rights Objections and the
> use of the term “infringement”.
>
> Action Item 6: General Questions -- 3rd bullet – Use more neutral
> language for the question regarding limits on funding for objections
> filed by ALAC? Change the question to: "If this does continue, should
> limits be placed on such funding? If yes, what limits should be applied?"
>
> _Working Group Actions_:
>
> Action Item 7: WG members should review Section 1.8.2 Accountability
> Mechanisms, and Section 1.9.1 String Contention Resolution in
> preparation for the meeting on Monday, 18 June.
>
> *Notes:*
>
> 1. Agenda Review
>
> 2. Roll Call/SOIs: No Updates
>
> 3. Review of the Initial Report (continued). * The purpose of this
> review is to ensure that preliminary outcomes and deliberations are
> accurately captured and written in an understandable manner. The WG
> Co-Chairs have sought to make clear that this exercise is not intended
> to re-open substantive discussions, which is better served by the
> submission of public comments and subsequently when reviewing public
> comments received. Please submit your comments about these sections to
> the Working Group mailing list (gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>) in advance of the meeting.
>
> a. Review of Section 1.8 (Objections; Accountability Mechanisms)
>
> 1.8.1 Objections
>
> -- If they are purely questions of clarification, not what we
> discussed, etc., then that is appropriate. We are trying to avoid
> opinion, new information, etc. as they belong in public comments.
>
> -- We are taking note of those types of comments and record them to
> make sure that none of those inputs are lost.
>
> -- Co-Leaders need to do more about the coordination of issues and
> discussions between the different work tracks -- there are some
> inconsistencies.
>
> -- There is a general issue between Work Track 5 and the extensive
> discussion of objection procedures. We need a caveat or qualification
> up front in this document that the objection procedures do not
> necessarily apply to all categories of applications subject to the
> work of Work Track 5.
>
> -- We will make it clear that the material we are putting out relates
> to everything except for geographic names at the top level.
>
> -- The work being done in the Work Tracks and the work being done in
> the WG: the Initial Report seems to only reflect work being done in
> the Work Track. Need to be very clear on the hierarchy and methodology.
>
> -- Page 7-8: Don't think it is possible to make objectors worldwide to
> bear the costs of their objection.
>
> Section c: Recommendations
>
> -- Question: 1st bullet -- did the WT consider who would administer
> the process? Answer: Discussed that whoever is appointing the panels
> should take care to make those assurances (ICANN Org through RFPs, for
> example) but we did not go into whose responsibility it was. So that
> the interests of the evaluators are stated up front. ACTION: Add for
> feedback. But perhaps point to existing mechanisms and ask if others
> are needed.
>
> Section d: Other items that were discussed, but didn't rise to the
> level of recommendations, so the WG is seeking feedback on them.
>
> Section e: Questions the PDP WG is seeking feedback on:
>
> -- Re: delay in the process (question) of course an objection is
> supposed to delay the process -- the question needs to be reformulated.
>
> -- Re: string confusion resulting from exact translations of existing
> TLDs -- concerns received from the community that were shared with the
> Work Track that said that exact translations of existing strings in
> highly regulated sectors that don't apply the same safeguards -- need
> to add a question for feedback.
>
> -- In order to be clear with this question, needs to be changed to
> strike infringement and say unfair advantage -- the rules state three
> grounds.
>
> -- From AGB: "“Existing Legal Rights Objection” refers to the
> objection that the string comprising the potential new gTLD infringes
> the existing legal rights of that are recognized or enforceable under
> generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law."
> AGB used infringement wrongly, but that's what it was.
>
> -- General Questions -- 3rd bullet -- can we use more neutral language
> for the question regarding limits on funding for objections filed by
> ALAC? something along the lines of "If this does continue, should
> limits be placed on such funding? If yes, what limits should be applied?"
>
> Section g: dependencies:
>
> -- Re: Independent Objector: On page 18 there is a question about
> whether there are other activities that would be a dependency, and
> mention the accountability work with respect to human rights. There
> was a section in the Accountability Work Stream 2 Sub Team on human
> rights that could have an impact on this section. The independent
> review process went into great detail, but the IO as relating to new
> gTLDs didn't have particular recommendations. There were things like
> the diversity of a panel, transparency, conflicts of interest -- so
> hopefully our recommendations will be founded on those models. None
> of the recommendations are finalized.
>
> 4. Next Steps:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m5W9S7Eigjs0OER6wv2skbG-eaObojBWMxvK4i1rNmc/edit
>
>
> Friday, 15 June 2018
>
> -- Initial Report -- Share other standard sections of the Initial
> Report, with placeholder for red-lined revisions
>
> -- Share revised sections (with possible exception of sections just
> reviewed)
>
> Monday, 18 June 2018
>
> -- Full WG Meeting: Discuss full Initial Report, Discuss red-lined
> revisions
>
> Wednesday, 20 June 2018: Share full Initial Report (on Wiki only)
>
> Tuesday, 3 July 2018
>
> -- Officially publish Initial Report for Public Comment
>
> --- Send correspondence to Board, inviting them to submit public comment
>
> -- Send email to ICANN org, inviting them to submit public comment
>
> -- Start a 60-day public comment period, through 05 September.
>
> Discussion:
>
> -- The level of detail tries to show what we can accomplish by what time.
>
> -- Try to develop a work plan of how we get to a final report,
> meeting-by-meeting with topics.
>
> -- At ICANN62: talk about how we organize this WG; put forward some
> proposals and get insight from the WG members and community.
>
> -- Develop a more detailed work plan to provide clarity.
>
> -- Question as to whether we need the CCT-RT Report and the WT5 report
> before the PDP can put forward a "final" document for public comment?
> We will consider this question.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180615/0592fa29/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180615/0592fa29/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180615/0592fa29/image005-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6502 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180615/0592fa29/image006-0001.png>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg
mailing list