[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 2 October 2018 at 03:00 UTC

Aikman-Scalese, Anne AAikman at lrrc.com
Tue Oct 2 19:00:57 UTC 2018


Hi Rubens,
I think Jeff clarified yesterday that the Review Recommendations are in fact recommendations to the Board – in the sense that the Board, as the final arbiter, as to deal with these in some manner.  It seems that in the draft, we are taking the position that this PDP can certainly question, reexamine, and disagree with those Recommendations and that some of them relate to matters of contract between the Contracted Parties and ICANN org.  You state that these matters are “inside the picket fence” and thus out of scope for the PDP.

I would note two things:


I.                    When there is disagreement between two bodies giving policy advice to the ICANN Board, the Board often seems to come back and request a “work-out”.  I think that is why Jeff and Cheryl seemed to agree yesterday on the call that our guidance on treatment of the CCT-RT Review Recommendations has to come from the GNSO Council.   As we know, these processes can be time-consuming.  So I think we all need to think about how to “cut to the chase”.  Unless these differences are addressed correctly from a procedural standpoint, there will be a bottleneck to launching the next round.  I am not sure our Charter is crystal clear on this point.  See reference to CCT-RT work from the final Charter pasted below:
[cid:image003.png at 01D45A47.10C52380]



II.                  Regarding the “picket fence”, it strikes me there are a number of items being considered in the Sub Pro PDP that might require changes to the RA and RAA, including changes that are desired by the Contracted Parties.  Should this PDP be doing an “audit” in this regard as to which policy changes might affect the Contracts?  As I understand it, the rule for a GNSO PDP is that the RA and RAA may only be affected by Consensus Policy recommended by the GNSO and adopted by the Board.  I do not understand the scope of the PDP to EXCLUDE entirely every topic that would result in a change to the standard RA or RAA.  Excerpts from the Charter relative to contracts appear below:
[cid:image004.png at 01D45A47.10C52380]

[cid:image002.png at 01D45A47.7858CB50]


Pasted below again for convenience are my preliminary questions on the draft “What still needs to be done” box of the Recommendations chart.

Anne

“Jeff and Cheryl,
Regarding agenda item 3 – Initial Assessment of work required in response to the Final Consumer Confidence and Trust Review Team Report, I have the following preliminary questions:


  1.  Regarding Recommendation 9 of CCT-RT, the draft response for our WG refers that matter to the RPM “PDP”.  However, my understanding is that the RPM Review is a required Review and not a Policy Development Process.  Is that incorrect?  Should the RPM Review results be incorporated into the work of the Sub Pro PDP or do they stand alone as separate policy recommendations to the GNSO?  In other words, what is the status of the mandated “Reviews” in relation to future gTLD policy?


  1.  Regarding Recommendations 14 and 15 of the CCT-RT related to DNS Security Abuse and consideration of a possible DNS Abuse Dispute Resolution Policy, it appears the draft Responses says that such matters  are outside the “remit” of the Subsequent Procedures Working Group and not within the purview of the community.  It is stated that these are suggestions to be negotiated between ICANN and the Contracted Parties.  Has this been discussed in the full WG?


  1.  Regarding Recommendations 14 and 16, the proposed Responses state that the Sub Pro PDP should look at the data that the CCT-RT has gathered rather than simply relying on the CCT-RT Recommendations.  Is the idea here that Sub Pro may elect to ignore CCT-RT Recommendations and form its own conclusions regarding DNS abuse?


  1.  There appear to be several comments framing questions as to whether the Sub Pro PDP WG “agrees” with the CCT-RT recommendations.  Is that an exercise that has to be performed with respect to each Recommendation of CCT-RT?  If the Reviews represent separate policy recommendations to the GNSO, does GNSO have to resolve differences between the Reviews and the Sub Pro recommendations before making recommendations to the ICANN Board?”




Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office


520.879.4725 fax

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

_____________________________

[cid:image006.png at 01D45A47.914A4AD0]

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: Monday, October 01, 2018 8:49 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: Steve Chan; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 2 October 2018 at 03:00 UTC



3.       Regarding Recommendations 14 and 16, the proposed Responses state that the Sub Pro PDP should look at the data that the CCT-RT has gathered rather than simply relying on the CCT-RT Recommendations.  Is the idea here that Sub Pro may elect to ignore CCT-RT Recommendations and form its own conclusions regarding DNS abuse?


Rec. 14 has two angles, one that can't be looked in a PDP, one that can. The one that can't are financial incentives; this would be a direct violation of the picket fence. But as long as the non-financial incentives do not violate any contract clause, this could be a PDP; but since existing agreements are mentioned, this can only be some other PDP than SubPro. So my guess is that the response is looking into what could specifically apply to subsequent gTLDs, since the recommendation per se couldn't be dealt by SubPro PDP.



4.       There appear to be several comments framing questions as to whether the Sub Pro PDP WG “agrees” with the CCT-RT recommendations.  Is that an exercise that has to be performed with respect to each Recommendation of CCT-RT?  If the Reviews represent separate policy recommendations to the GNSO, does GNSO have to resolve differences between the Reviews and the Sub Pro recommendations before making recommendations to the ICANN Board?

The reviews represent advice applicable to all ICANN organisations, including Board and GNSO, but I don't see them as binding. I believe they have to be duly considered either by SubPro PDP, for those applicable to new procedures, or by some other PDP, if applicable to all gTLDs (like rec. 14 and 16) .


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/20181002/028f3395/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 19382 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20181002/028f3395/image003-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 14147 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20181002/028f3395/image004-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5170 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20181002/028f3395/image002-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6489 bytes
Desc: image006.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20181002/028f3395/image006-0001.png>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list