[Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Initial Report

Tue Jun 19 23:48:54 UTC 2018

Rubens,

See comments inline.  If these issues are not raised in the Initial Report, the discussions that occurred in Work Track 4 are not accurately reflected.  (See especially the mp3 of the November 30 call and my follow up emails in January and February citing to the exact minute of the mp3 recording.)

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:image002.png at 01D407ED.67209860]

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]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 4:16 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: Jeff Neuman; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Initial Report

Anne,

I'll skip non WT4 themes since they have already been or will be addressed by others.

2.       Disclosure of New Services at the Time of Application.  Regarding the portion of the draft report that deals with disclosure of new services at the time of application,  Question 23 of the existing application requires that all new services proposed be described, including any security and stability issues that may be associated with that.   The initial draft report skipped over this issue that was clearly raised in Work Track 4 and talked about the flexibility to propose new services either at the application stage or later on in the RSEP process (even if known at the time of application).    As mentioned, there are “trade-offs” here in relation to opportunities for Objections and Evaluations and these should be highlighted for public comment.

Actually, it is quite the opposite. What is said there is that applicants would be able to disclose services at application time even if not submitting them to evaluation, increasing opportunity for Objections.   There is no point in arguing this difference of opinion further.   The 2012 round application Question 23 REQUIRES disclosure of all services at the time of application.  This is not optional “would be able” disclosure.  That’s why the draft does not reflect the discussion in Work Track 4.  The draft says it’s optional and does not highlight the issue  discussed in Work Track 4 which I have raised and documented multiple times.   (No one disagrees with the concept of pre-approved services and no one disagrees as to new services not known at the time of application.   We rely on applicants to be honest.)  The language I proposed discusses the trade-offs and you know I have raised this issue consistently from the first slide you produced.  It was tagged as an issue for public comment and I identified the point in the mp3 from the November 30 call where this was discussed as well as the follow-up email I sent to the list.  Failing to reflect this issue in the Initial Report would mean discussion in the Work Track is not accurately reflected.  Jeff and Cheryl are very aware of this, having participated in those calls directly and read the corresponding list emails.

3.       Aggregated Technical and Financial Evaluations.   There was discussion in Work Track 4 about not putting applications that propose new and innovative services at a disadvantage as to timing of contract award based on the fact that these could not be processed as quickly.  The purpose of the new gTLD program is innovation.  Again, there are “trade-offs” here.   This question falls into the category of items as to which there has been no coordination among the Work Tracks.  While this may not have been the responsibility of Work Track 4 per se, that does not mean it is not a concern and does not mean it was not discussed.  I am not the only person in the Work Track who mentioned this problem.

There is a fundamental difference between evaluation processing and results publishing. WT4 only addressed the first part; if a result is ready but due to the application sequencing it's publishing is not yet timely, then it won't be published. The process is not meant to be a waterfall, but a series of parallel efforts that have some control points, and any fairness issue is address at those control points.   I and others expressed concern about the effect of this aggregation on time of processing applications in Work Track 4.  The issue was raised as a question for public comment from November 30 onward and was noted as such in the follow-up email I sent to the list, including the exact point in the mp3 of the November 30 call where this was discussed.   Failing to reflect that concern would simply be a denial of the discussions that actually occurred in the Work Track.  Jeff and Cheryl are very aware of this, having participated in those calls directly and read the corresponding list emails.

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/20180619/f737aa2d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6488 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180619/f737aa2d/image002-0001.png>