[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 18 November 2019 at 15:00 UTC

Fri Nov 15 21:02:45 UTC 2019

Hi all,

I agree with Jim, Jorge and Annebeth!

Regards to all

Olga

El vie., 15 nov. 2019 a las 13:00, Annebeth Lange (<annebeth.lange at norid.no>)
escribió:

> Hi all
>
> I totally agree with Jim and Jorge. Good points well worth listening to.
>
> Kind regards
> Annebeth
>
> > 15. nov. 2019 kl. 16:54 skrev "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch" <
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>:
> >
> > Dear all
> >
> > Let me support what Jim said, with the friendly amendment not to „mind
> the GAC“ but to „mind disagreements between the PDP WG. and the GAC“
> > (it‘s less crisp but more diplomatic 😉)
> >
> > Being serious: Jim makes very important points and devoting a bit more
> time to a public comment on the full report is very well worth the time -
> it’s better to finish things up right that rushing into a quick end with a
> neverending post-lude...
> >
> > kindly
> >
> > Jorge
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Von: Jim Prendergast <jim at GALWAYSG.COM>
> > Datum: 15. November 2019 um 16:18:59 MEZ
> > An: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <
> gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> > Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent
> Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 18 November 2019 at 15:00 UTC
> >
> > Thanks Julie for the Agenda.
> >
> > I’d like to add to either AOB or another agenda item in its own right
> the question of what is put out for the comment in the next comment
> period.  We discussed this in Montreal but I don’t feel like we have
> closure on a pretty important question.
> >
> > During our sessions at ICANN, the WG discussed the merits of a comment
> period for just new items or a broader one focused on the entire effort.
> Over the course of attending several other non-Sub Pro meetings where our
> work was discussed by the ICANN community, my thinking on this has evolved
> and I want to share with the broader group the reasons why putting out all
> of our draft final recommendations with the new items is the prudent path
> forward.
> >
> > Going into the ICANN meeting, I personally didn’t have a firm sense of
> the workplan or timing.  But seeing the timelines and hearing Jeff say that
> we should have draft final recommendations in December helped clarify where
> we are in this process.  We are almost there.
> >
> > During our the discussion, “Putting the entire document out” was a vague
> term which really didn’t define the request very well.  But now knowing we
> will soon have draft final recommendations as well as some open items makes
> it much more manageable.  With draft final recommendations, the community
> can clearly see where the group is headed and will be less inclined to come
> back with the open-ended type of comments we saw from with the initial and
> supplemental initial report.  And of course, we want feedback on the open
> items.
> >
> > Some specific benefits of a comment period inclusive of draft final
> recommendations:
> >
> > Context – Greg Shatan raised a very good point about only putting out
> pieces of the report and that it doesn’t give the community any sense of
> context in how they fit into the larger report.  Can someone who is
> concerned with applicant support really comment on contention resolution
> without knowing what support mechanisms there are for applicants from
> underserved regions?  As many in the community have not been following the
> deliberations of this group, they need the context to understand how
> everything works together.
> >
> > Interdependencies – As several people noted, our final report will be a
> rather complex with lots of interplay between sections.  As such, allowing
> the community the chance to see how the different pieces fit together will
> paint a more comprehensive picture of how this effort will ultimately
> look.  Without having the entire document to review, it’s impossible to see
> the various interdependencies.
> >
> > Changes vs Status Quo - People will naturally focus on any changes to
> the 2012 round we propose because those are new and different.  But I think
> putting entire set of proposed final recommendations, including where we
> recommend no change (the status quo) is valuable as well in case the Board,
> GAC or others are expecting a change to something and we decided not to
> make any.  Helps avoid those surprises.
> >
> > CCT-RT – This report, and ICANN’s and SubPro’s handling of it, is on
> just about everyone’s radar and was one of 3 Consensus Advice items in the
> GAC communique. I realize we are still finalizing our position on this but
> given the high-profile nature of this report, especially in the context of
> the DNS abuse discussions, we should be sure that everyone knows what we
> will be recommending before it is finalized. If there is an expectation by
> the Board, GAC, Org or the community that we should be doing more, then we
> need to hear that now and not after the report is finalized.
> >
> > Completeness check – having the draft final recommendations available
> for comment will help not only this group, but the Board and Org, spot any
> potential gaps in our policy making recommendations.  I liken this to
> having an editor review a draft before it is sent to the publisher.  Are we
> missing anything?  The ICANN Board and Org do not want to be in the same
> position as 2012 when they were forced to make policy as part of
> implementation because there were gaps in the Guidebook and related
> policies.  To date, no one in the WG has seen the whole picture so it’s
> important for us to do our own completeness check.
> >
> > Process – some people have raised an issue with whether the initial
> report was in fact an initial report according to GNSO guidelines.  By
> putting all the draft final recommendations out for review, I believe it
> might satisfy those who have raised this issue.
> >
> > Mind the GAC - During the session on Sub Pro with the GAC, Swiss GAC
> representative Jorge Cancio made it clear that GAC wants to see the report
> before the final recommendations “crystalize.” This comment period could
> accomplish this. Knowing that the GAC now has a “Focal Group” on Subsequent
> Rounds will hopefully lead to a more efficient process where we receive
> feedback that could help us avoid GAC advice further down the road.  I am
> more confident in the Sub Pro WG’s ability to respond to GAC feedback now
> in a timely manner than I am with the Board’s ability to deal with GAC
> advice in a timely manner later.
> >
> > I’d rather get the bad news now and not later – As with GAC advice, I’d
> want to get concerns from the Board and Org now and not after this has been
> sent to them by Council.  We can address any substantive issues now as a
> group and avoid having the Council reconstitute this group if the Board
> sends the report back with guidance/Instruction.  When Cherine said that
> the Board would act quickly once they receive the report from Council,
> don’t make the mistake of assuming they will quickly approve something.
> They could just as easily act quickly and send it back to us.  Then we are
> really stuck.
> >
> > New comers – Despite lamentations from the co-chairs to the GNSO council
> about newcomers not familiarizing themselves with the work of the WG, when
> people raised Sub Pro issues with the Board either during constituency day
> or the Public Forum, the response given by the Board was “get involved with
> Sub Pro.”  Having a broader comment period allows such involvement without
> necessarily disrupting the pace of the work of the group as a whole.  It
> also allows those of us who have been working on this the entire time to
> see a full draft report.  Something we have not seen yet.  The initial
> report was far from complete and the supplemental was a subset of topics.
> >
> > While having a broader comment period now will yield more work and
> possibly add more time to an already tenuous timeline, I strongly believe
> it will help us save time later in the process by heading off any surprises
> for and from the Board, GAC and the community at large.
> >
> > Thanks for making it this far and talk with you on Monday.  Have a good
> weekend.
> >
> > Jim Prendergast
> > The Galway Strategy Group
> > +1 202 285 3699
> > @jimpren
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of
> Julie Hedlund
> > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 3:28 PM
> > To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> > Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent
> Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 18 November 2019 at 15:00 UTC
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Monday, 18
> November 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes:
> >
> > 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest
> >
> > 2. Review of summary documents:
> >
> > a. Registry System Testing:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RGB1DYMZAb62izAV0Uxo9pmEskYzZ4SGSa4JqWQqQ4Q/edit?usp=sharing
> (page 2)
> > b. TLD Rollout:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eYhtbK_sEKWzdUjwg7zURL2HnKYTYCJeItX-h66XgEw/edit?usp=sharing
> (page 2)
> > c. Contractual Compliance:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eYhtbK_sEKWzdUjwg7zURL2HnKYTYCJeItX-h66XgEw/edit?usp=sharing
> (time permitting, page 6)
> >
> > 3. AOB
> >
> > If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email
> gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Julie
> > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> > Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
> > _______________________________________________
> > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20191115/f6ba034e/attachment.html>