[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018

[Karen Day]

“, we have Work Track 3, apparently intent on imposing an Objection Based system on the whole of the PDP (Section 1.8.1)“

Christopher –

I would ask you to remember that the objection based system is the system which was in place for the 2012 round.  Work Track 3 has not created anything new to ”impose upon the whole PDP” as you have implied on multiple occasions.  Our mission is to review and revise/refine the existing policy.   If WT5 feels that there should be a different approach to GeoNames, they are free to create such new policy carving out GeoNames from the existing policy.  There is nothing that WT3 has done which will impair the work of WT 5, though it may be used to inform the work.

Thanks,
Karen
Co-lead WT3

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of lists at christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 8:10 AM
To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 June 2018


EXTERNAL

Dear Rubens:

That is not at all how I see it today. I shall speak to the issue on this afternoon's call.

To take one current example, we have Work Track 3, apparently intent on imposing an Objection Based system on the whole of the PDP (Section 1.8.1) whereas informed opinion in WT5 has clearly stated that would not work and supports a prior-authorisation system-

I can think of several other inconsistencies that I have noticed among the current drafts of the various sections of the draft Report

Thankyou for your attention

Chrisotopher
El 17 de junio de 2018 a las 23:23 Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>> escribió:



On 16 Jun 2018, at 16:48, lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:

Dear Ken Stubbs:
Thankyou. I think you and Anne are correct, if for other reasons.
1.  there are several aspects of the draft report which  - taken literally - would seriously prejudice the outcome of the WT5 work on Geographical Names.  I would not support taking those matters off the WT5 agenda simply because other WTs have been closed down, prematurely, by 'finalising' their draft reports.

As pointed out by many during the call, this is simply not true. WT5 has full discretion to determine whether something particular to Geo Names needs different handling.



2.  WT5 started late (¿Why?). So be it, but then the PDP has to mark time while the Geo-Names issues are resolved, including aspects that are being treated, to date, by other WTs.

Also not true, since there is much more to discuss than Geo-Names specifically.


3.  From my point of view I could not support going out for 'public comment' on the basis of a partial draft that does not reflect a consensus of the Work Tracks.

This was already answered a number of times by co-chairs.



Rubens

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180618/4a6ebdeb/attachment.html>