[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Written Comments - Draft Initial Report Section 1.7

Sat May 26 00:57:19 UTC 2018

Dear all:
Regarding accurate reflection of the discussions which occurred in Work Track 4  - see Section 1.7 of the draft Initial Report - items raised several times are summarized in my e-mail of February 28, 2018 below.   These items were raised in the Work Track 4 call on November 30, 2017  as documented in the attached email of January 17, 2018.   (The attached email notes the points in the mp3 recording from November 30 at which these items were discussed.)   Thus, the points were raised, at a minimum, on November 30, 2017, January 17, 2018, and February 28, 2018.

Please note that the items set out below are specifically identified as issues/questions that should be put out for public comment and that should be highlighted in the Initial Report.   Accordingly, could staff please make certain that Section 1.7 of the draft accurately reflects the items below? That should save a lot of time on the May 29 call.

Thank you,
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:image004.png at 01D3F451.D1953020]

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/>

From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 1:42 PM
To: 'Rubens Kuhl'; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org
Cc: Jeff Neuman; Cheryl Langdon-Orr
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] WT4 Call #25
Importance: High

Thanks Rubens.  Regarding AOB, I had previously raised issues in relation to topics discussed in Call #21 and was assured that these would be addressed in upcoming calls.   A copy of my e-mail of January 17 concerning these issues is again attached.

In the plenary meeting on Monday, I requested that these issues be added to the agenda for the March 1 call.  My concern is that the issues will be skipped.  It seems that a draft Initial Report is imminent.   Thus, these issues should be raised for further discussion in AOB so that the work of the group on those issues can be accurately reflected in the draft Initial Report before it goes out for public comment.

A very short summary of the noted issues appears in bullet point form below:

1.       Aggregated technical evaluation should not affect the order of processing applications.  Kurt Pritz objected to the “as much as feasible” language in the slides and stated “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.”  This issue should be raised for public comment.

2.       Issue Still to be Defined – whether a new gTLD applicant should or should not be required to disclose planned new services at the time of application.  This is an important question for public comment in that the current policy requires such disclosure where as several in the group commented that they disfavor public disclosure of new services and favor the RSEP process.   This also relates to Question 18 of the application.  Three straw models were proposed and discussed.  Friendly amendments were offered, but no final recommended model was adopted by the group.  Will all three models go out for public comment?

3.       Name Collisions – Items which should be put out for public comment are:

(a) Should ICANN be directly responsible for controlled interruption rather than the registries?

(b) What should be the period of controlled interruption?

(c) Re the proposal for “do not apply” and “exercise care” lists, as well as low and medium risk categories, we need public comment on how to establish standards for these lists so that our input can be provided to the SSAC, and

(d) we need public comment on whether or not applicants should be able to propose name collision mitigation plans on an individual string-by-string basis and what mechanism, if any, could be put in place to approve such an individualized  mitigation plan.  (Again, this will be important for providing input to the SSAC.)

The above issues should be highlighted in the Initial Report.

Thank you,
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 01D3B099.F3BB0040]

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/>

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 7:29 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] WT4 Call #25

Dear WT4 members,

The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place for 60 minutes on Thursday, 01 March 2018 at 20:00 UTC, 21:00 Brussels, 20:00 London, 12:00 Los Angeles, 15:00 Washington DC; Friday 02 March, 04:00 Singapore, 05:00 Tokyo, 07:00 Sydney.

The proposed agenda, as previously mentioned during the last WT4 call, is as follows:

1.         Welcome, SOI updates
2.         WG Co-chairs guidance on Initial Report
3.         Registry System Testing
4.    AOB

Since RST (Registry System Testing) was described in AGB as PDT (Pre-Delegation Testing), reading section 5.2 is recommended:
https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/transition-delegation-04jun12-en.pdf

More documents are available at ICANN's RST website, https://www.icann.org/resources/registry-system-testing , of which this chart - https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/rst-1280x720-31jul17-en.jpg - is an useful high-level summary.

For WG members, please use the instructions in the calendar invite for connecting to AC and phone bridge, with phone bridge recommended for those willing to speak.

Best,
CLO & 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/20180526/8c66ec52/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6500 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180526/8c66ec52/image002-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6500 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180526/8c66ec52/image004-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com>
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 22:07:42 +0000
Size: 54531
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180526/8c66ec52/REGnso-newgtld-wg-wt4RegistryServicesstraw-person-0001.mht>