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

Justine Chew justine.chew at gmail.com
Tue Oct 16 15:12:39 UTC 2018


Thanks Steve and good question Anne.

In response, I propose we consider extending the relevant question in the
ensuing part e as follows (in blue):

   - Do you believe instead that there are practical ways to allow some
   forms of private resolution but disallow others, as indicated in option 3
   above? What would be the acceptable or non-acceptable forms of private
   resolution and why? Who should determine whether parties in a contention
   set have or have not engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution
   and how would such a determination be established?

Or something along these lines.

Justine Chew
-----


On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 22:31, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com> wrote:

> This looks good Steve – just a question – does our draft say  in what
> manner would parties be “found” to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of
> private resolution?  Is it an Objection process or a Complaint process.
> Who makes the “finding”?
>
> 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:* Monday, October 15, 2018 4:44 PM
> *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Justine Chew'; 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
>
>
>
> Apologies, I hit a shortcut on my keyboard to send the email below
> prematurely!
>
>
>
> Here is the sentence:
>
>
>
> *If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private
> resolution, that will result in (a) the application not being allowed to
> proceed – if a Registry Agreement was not signed by the time it is
> discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a Registry
> Agreement is signed).*
>
>
>
> The use of “not being allowed to proceed” should be consistent with both
> of the Applicant Guidebook and the Current Application Status page. Also,
> “agreement” and “contract” have both been replaced with Registry Agreement.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>
> *Date: *Monday, October 15, 2018 at 4:39 PM
> *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com>, '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
>
>
>
> 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
>
> _____________________________
>
> [image: cid:image003.png at 01D4623D.7CF22C80]
>
> 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
> <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]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=MVx0nzP4joDJOrsrpDF6OMtXVUS0lLxK-EifC9k1Grs&s=kRn6INeSNhomMcZYjjR0SnPQrxI8W_TeXJQxYagqzvU&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <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.
>
>
>
>    1. Agenda review/SOIs
>    2. Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5
>    continued
>    3. Planning for ICANN63
>    4. 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]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__63.schedule.icann.org_meetings&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=MVx0nzP4joDJOrsrpDF6OMtXVUS0lLxK-EifC9k1Grs&s=OwbIxWSvUzEgvtmZSrNRFzGFNaHSTIyaP-H3NDPwC7c&e=>
> ).
>
>
>
> 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]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=MVx0nzP4joDJOrsrpDF6OMtXVUS0lLxK-EifC9k1Grs&s=aqRmPH37-CSqB-BkAGW4hQxESWc4DSBQ-SnvKYVuqSU&e=> and
> visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=MVx0nzP4joDJOrsrpDF6OMtXVUS0lLxK-EifC9k1Grs&s=6uYPer9tDaGLGcGCeGygqeE7ZNj4OXB9nKNTaPNj0VI&e=>
> .
>
>
>
> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=MVx0nzP4joDJOrsrpDF6OMtXVUS0lLxK-EifC9k1Grs&s=YnVvqIw9fX3ntK3VJ9BiGRN5QzkNcIar-P7lffaK76g&e=>
>
> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/
> [facebook.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icanngnso_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=MVx0nzP4joDJOrsrpDF6OMtXVUS0lLxK-EifC9k1Grs&s=w6HZSPu31wlJHLIMUh8IQOzD0vAQPEfwCAo9tBDKcPA&e=>
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=MVx0nzP4joDJOrsrpDF6OMtXVUS0lLxK-EifC9k1Grs&s=Y8MO_1i0jk60Pzequ2aSJWMYkvFNEocVzRxlE7SJaTU&e=>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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/20181016/75642284/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20181016/75642284/image004-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20181016/75642284/image001-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20181016/75642284/image001-0003.png>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list