[Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Initial Report Excerpts Red-lines and Updated Preamble

Wed Jun 20 15:39:22 UTC 2018

Dear Steve and WG Members,

A few follow up comments about the latest redline version:

1.9 - Community Applications: 

(e) Questions 

After the second sentence in bullet #1, I believe the following should be inserted so as to not lead others into presumption that the Working Group fully agreed that the current definition of “community” is deficient, or that the overriding problem we are trying to address lies exclusively with the existing definition. I pointed this out on the June 18 call and I believe it was accepted as an additional question for this section. My suggestion would be something like (in RED):

·         … but no definition was universally agreed upon. Do you believe the current definition of “community” in the AGB is sufficiently clear and flexible to represent the intentions of existing policy about community applications and the various types of communities that may seek priority in the new gTLD program? If not, how would you define “community” for the purposes of community-based …

My rationale for this was that existing policy and language seems quite inviting to varying types of communities, yet it was the evaluators that offered little flexibility in the way they addressed the various types of communities that applied for new gTLDs. 

Reflection on the 2012 round shows clear bias in favor of those community applicants representing an industry or commercial interest, yet that approach was not based in any legitimate reflection or interpretation of 1) the definition of “community” or 2) criteria provided in the AGB. Communities should not be at the short end of the stick in being awarded new gTLDs simply because evaluators are unable or unwilling to consider the various perspectives by which the AGB language and instruction have been interpreted and applied in context with the actual communities that community applications represent.

(f) Deliberations 

The second bullet point is still factually incorrect. It needs to be clear that the CPE providers only published their CPE Guidelines after applications were submitted to ICANN. As I pointed out in a prior email on 6/13/18, the bullet should read:

·         Evaluation procedures for applications were only developed after the 2012 application window had already closed;

I also reminded about the following deliberation point via email that appears to have been in part rejected in the latest redline.

·         Concern about contractual agreements ICANN knowingly made with CPE providers that prevented transparency of CPE documents and other related materials (as evidenced by recent threats by EIU to sue ICANN if information was released).

What is missing is the transparency of contractual agreements ICANN makes with third party evaluators, specifically if ICANN should be allowed to make such agreements conducive to avoiding transparency. I would request that bullet #4 is further edited as follows:

·         Lack of transparency and predictability of Community Priority Evaluation (CPE), in terms of the process, documentation, third party evaluator contracts, and outcomes;

Additionally, from an email I submitted on 6/13/18, the following points appear to have been partially rejected as part of deliberation points I previously raised in the WG. I request they be added to the record unless someone can provide me with rationale for not including them.

1.     Concerns about processes described in the AGB and the CPE Guidelines that were not adhered to by the CPE Providers, or were not adhered to as strictly as the language provided for in published materials:

a.     Verification of support/opposition letters – all were to require verified, many were not verified without reason

b.     Party responsible for verification letters – was described by the CPE Provider in their own guidelines as a responsibility of one of the two CPE panelists, but actually done by CPE support staff

2.     Concerns about the lack of oversight during CPE which resulted in poor performance of the CPE Providers:

a.     Verification emails were sent to endorsing organizations that contained response date requirements that had already expired. When reported to ICANN, no email correction was sent to the effected parties and ICANN instructed applicant to carry the burden of informing endorsing organizations to respond to emails anyway, despite the expired due date

b.     CPE Providers falling short on letter verification duties 

The only deliberation point currently reflecting any portion of these concerns is that final bullet point in the redline: 

·         Concerns about process for reviewing support/opposition letter (e.g., scope of review, party performing review).

I do not believe the full extent of concerns/experiences I have shared during deliberations are fully captured by this single bullet addition. Specifically missing are the overriding concerns I have raised in bullet #1 & #2 above which speak to the action/behavior of the CPE Providers and ICANN specifically as they relate to published standards and overall performance in CPE.

Much thanks

Jamie

Jamie Baxter

dotgay LLC

 <mailto:jamie at dotgay.com> jamie at dotgay.com

 <http://www.dotgay.com/> www.dotgay.com

A Certified LGBT Business Enterprise (LGBTBE)

Please join us on Facebook at  <http://www.facebook.dotgay.com/> www.facebook.dotgay.com

and follow us at  <http://www.twitter.com/dotgay> www.twitter.com/dotgay

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 1:30 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Initial Report Excerpts Red-lines and Updated Preamble

Dear WG Members,

As noted by Jeff a short while ago, the red-lined excerpts have all been made available on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB. On this page, you will a full set of red-lined excerpts, all sections in a single document. You will also find extracts of each section as well. All of these documents are available in Word and PDF.

Included as well on this page is the latest version of the remaining elements of the Initial Report, which includes edits suggested by WG members to the Preamble. The next steps from the staff side are to complete some of the remaining elements in the Initial Report, as well as to begin integrating the excerpts into the report.

If you have any questions, please do let us know.

Best,

Steve, Emily, and Julie

Steven Chan

Policy Director, GNSO Support

ICANN

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536

steve.chan at icann.org

mobile: +1.310.339.4410

office tel: +1.310.301.5800

office fax: +1.310.823.8649

Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso>  and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers> .

Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO

Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/

http://gnso.icann.org/en/

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180620/f0719d57/attachment-0001.html>