[Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC

Steve Chan steve.chan at icann.org
Mon Oct 15 23:39:46 UTC 2018


Dear Anne, Justine, Jeff, all,

 

Based on your suggestions, the sentence has been amended as such: 

 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com>
Date: Friday, October 12, 2018 at 3:09 PM
To: 'Justine Chew' <justine.chew at gmail.com>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC

 

We may want to check the terms used in the new gTLD “status” pages for strings in contention.  Language should likely be consistent with what is posted there by icann.org if possible.

 

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman at lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Justine Chew
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:21 PM
To: Jeff Neuman
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC

 

Thanks for your reply, Jeff.

Just on my first question, yes, I don't disagree with your explanation, but I did want to, if possible, establish the intent to the consequence of being found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution. Post AGB, additional statuses for applications were introduced during implementation phase, for eg. "Not Approved". 

As mentioned before, "withdrawing" implies to me a choice by the applicant, and in fact the "withdrawn" status explicitly states so at  

https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/advisories/application-contention-set-14mar14-en. Hence I was concerned about the ramification around choice by the applicant, not to mention any 'rights' as to refunds. 

I wonder if the term "non-approval" might be an appropriate alternative to "withdrawing", although I'm not sure if "non-approval" will then raise further complications to the AGB as drafted.


Justine Chew 
-----

 

 

On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 02:34, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> wrote:

Thanks Justine.

 

Your questions are good ones.  On the first one, I believe ICANN only uses the terms “withdrawn” or “shall not proceed” in the Guidebook.   I don’t believe the word termination is used in connection with an application.  So, that is why that term was selected.

 

On the second question the agreement/contract is the ICANN Registry Agreement and I agree with you that we should make it more clear in both parts of that sentence.   

 

 

Jeff Neuman

Senior Vice President 

 

Com Laude | Valideus
1751 Pinnacle Drive 

Suite 600, McLean

VA 22102, USA


D: +1.703.635.7514

T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250

E: jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
www.comlaude.com


Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc.

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Justine Chew
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 8:45 AM
To: steve.chan at icann.org
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC

 

Could I get some clarity on the proposed text/language regarding the third option as highlighted in yellow below please.
A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN.   Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures.  If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution.  
1) If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in withdrawing of an application. Should it not result in a termination or dismissal of an application? "Withdrawing" implies that the applicant has a choice, or is that what was intended by author of this text and/or WG? 

2) Is the term "agreement" in part (a) meant to be the same thing as the term "contract" in part (b)? Can we be specific about what agreement or contract these are meant to be? 

 

Thanks,


Justine Chew 
-----

 

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 07:58, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com> wrote:

Probably “in addition”.

Thank you,

Anne

 

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman at lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
 

 

From: Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan at icann.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 9:22 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC

 

Dear Anne, apologies, the email below was sitting unsent. Below is confirmation that your suggestion was integrated, but also a questions/suggestion for your and the WG’s consideration.

 

 

 

Your suggestion has been added to the working draft, although I wonder if this is more applicable to the section on change requests, where the topic of string changes is talked about more fully? Specifically, it might make sense to add to this block of text in section 1.4.d instead (or in addition?):

 

Implementation Guidance: Some examples to consider in allowing for a new string to be selected include prepending/appending a new element to the original string or selecting a string that is closely related to the class/sector of the original string. ICANN org must perform a re-evaluation of the new applied-for string in all string related evaluation elements (e.g., DNS Stability, String Contention, etc.) and the application for the new string would be subject to string related objections (e.g., String Confusion Objections, Legal Rights Objections, etc.). The applicant may be responsible for additional, material costs incurred by ICANN due to re-evaluation and the application could be subject to delay.

 

Best,

Steve

 

From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:35 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC

 

Thanks Steve.  As mentioned on yesterday’s call, I have comments and language for the last bullet point under 1.2 (d).  After considering this language more carefully,  please see the following change in red:

 
A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN.   Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures.  If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution.
 

 

 

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman at lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com [lrrc.com]
 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 2:42 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC

 

Dear WG Members,

 

Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes.

 
Agenda review/SOIs
Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued
Planning for ICANN63
AOB
    

For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft.

 

For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings [63.schedule.icann.org]). 

  

Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs at icann.org).

 

Best,

Steve 2

 

 

Steven Chan


Policy Director, GNSO Support

 

ICANN

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536


Mobile: +1.310.339.4410

Offic
 

e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800

Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649

 

Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org].

 

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

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

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

 

 


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. 

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

 


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/20181015/18d2ba5c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6489 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20181015/18d2ba5c/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2027 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20181015/18d2ba5c/smime-0001.p7s>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list