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

Thu Jun 21 01:08:32 UTC 2018

Rubens,
I honestly don’t know how you can say that this was not discussed in the Work Track and was only mentioned by me.  You are essentially forcing me to copy and paste the language from the email I had attached into this email  - to document something which is very clear from the November 30 call.  Below I highlight in bold the relevant language regarding the issues raised and the fact that Kurt Pritz was also vocal about this.  (Further,  even if Kurt had not chimed in, the fact that only one person raises an issue for discussion and public comment does not mean it can be roundly ignored. )

Copied and pasted from my confirming email from the November 30 which was circulated to the Work Track 4 list several times:

“Items as to which we, as members of the WT 4 group,  had input during the call include:

1.       At 15 minutes into the call, discussion of policy regarding aggregated technical evaluation should not affect order of processing applications, subject to the policy-making recommendations of Work Track ___  “as much as feasible (and consistent the order of processing of applications as recommended by Work Track X”.  This concept was supported vocally by Kurt Pritz at 18 minutes into the call and said “Additional technical evaluation should not retard or slow down applications….they should retain their place in queue and should not be penalized in any way from a timing standpoint”.  Kurt did not like the “as much as feasible” language either.  He said it was too vague as policy language.

2.       At 27 minutes into the call – Registry Services Slide  (Slide 8?)  – Clarify the issue Still to Be Defined – “whether a new gTLD applicant should be required to disclose new services at the time of application”.   Cheryl said this additional bullet is at 34 min into the call.   Cheryl also confirms in this discussion that there are in fact three Straw models still under discussion on this question and that this can be clarified in the slides.    (The second bullet point is misleading in that it states that RSEP is “the tool”  (emphasis added) for proposing new services.  This implies a consensus that RSEP trumps the existing policy that requires disclosure of proposed new services in a new gTLD application.)  Nowhere in the slides is there a reference to the discussion re the three Straw models.  Thus, this is an issue “Still To Be Defined”.  As per Cheryl’s comment, “This is clearly being marked out as work still to be done.”  Maxim also points out in chat that RSEP is only for registries that have a Registry Agreement and might not be so for Applicants.

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 01D408C1.B2508A00]

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 Rubens Kuhl
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 7:18 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Initial Report

The attached email was about call #21, Registry Services, as I mentioned before, not about Aggregated Evaluation. And that's exactly what drove the registry services outcome that was discussed in San Juan and later published in the report.

So, I still don't see any evidence of anyone besides you making that point on aggregated technical (or financial) evaluation.

Rubens

On 19 Jun 2018, at 21:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>> wrote:

In order to refresh your memory, please see attached email with references to the specific minute of the mp3 recording for each issue.

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office

520.879.4725 fax

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

_____________________________

<image003.png>

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 5:14 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: Jeff Neuman; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Initial Report

On 19 Jun 2018, at 20:48, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>> wrote:

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, while you are focused on the report, I referred to the actual substantive discussions in WT4. I'll let staff and co-chairs answer anything related to the report, which was not the focus of my responses.

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.

I mentioned above how the WT4 outcome described how it could be done, not how 2012 round was done, which is only part of the report.

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.

It's actually silent on that, and others also didn't take that language as saying that, as you probably remember.

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.

Actually not; only in Registry Services other have mentioned that, regarding aggregation of evaluations.

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.

________________________________

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/20180621/e265c0eb/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6496 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180621/e265c0eb/image003-0001.png>