[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 18 November 2019 at 15:00 UTC
AAikman at lrrc.com
Mon Nov 18 14:50:22 UTC 2019
Hi Jeff et al – Once we get that draft Final Report, we will all be in a much better position to weigh in on the public comment aspects. As you know, I personally favor publishing the entire report with tentative Consensus designations (perhaps with limited “multiple choice” survey type boxes to be checked for items where we have full consensus or where we believe no consensus will be reached and that we must fall back to 2012 implementation.) That would make it much easier to review public comment quickly. This would be the first time we week public comment with Consensus designations, a process that is clearly intended by Section 10 of the PDP Manual. If we do this now, we will be more likely to expedite the next round rather than delay it. This is because the Board insists they do not make policy. When there are big policy disagreements in the Community, the Board tells us to “go work it out.” So let’s work it out now so we can get to the next round sooner.
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2019 7:55 PM
To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli at gmail.com>; Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange at norid.no>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 18 November 2019 at 15:00 UTC
Thanks all. Leadership will have a call this week to discuss our options on this (as well as many other issues).
However, I do not believe any additional time on our calls should be devoted to this discussion at this point in time. Unfortunately we spend a lot of time talking about process, things that we will be doing, things that we should be doing, etc. This is not to say that these are not all excellent points….they are.
But the only way we will truly make progress is to continue discussions on the substance.
Senior Vice President
Com Laude | Valideus
E: jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 4:03 PM
To: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange at norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange at norid.no>>
Cc: 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 - Monday, 18 November 2019 at 15:00 UTC
I agree with Jim, Jorge and Annebeth!
Regards to all
El vie., 15 nov. 2019 a las 13:00, Annebeth Lange (<annebeth.lange at norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange at norid.no>>) escribió:
I totally agree with Jim and Jorge. Good points well worth listening to.
> 15. nov. 2019 kl. 16:54 skrev "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto: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...
> Von: Jim Prendergast <jim at GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim at GALWAYSG.COM>>
> Datum: 15. November 2019 um 16:18:59 MEZ
> An: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>, gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto: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
> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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><mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>.
> Kind regards,
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>
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...
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg