[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review

Mon Aug 10 18:25:08 UTC 2020

Thank you Jamie.  I appreciate your concern.  I don’t know personally what the deadline is for filing letters of opposition to a community application.  I assume it is the public comment period?

I guess I would just repeat that as long as it is clear that any either public or private resolution of issues that results in the adoption of an RVC not contained in the original application absolutely requires public comment, then I am okay with the appropriate language/implementation.  My example is:  I write to you after your application is published and say, “unless you adopt X RVC, I will file an Objection or letter of Opposition to your application.”

I think Kathie strongly objects to private resolution of issues via RVCs but I am not certain where she stands on this at this point.
Anne

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Jamie Baxter
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 10:54 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review

[EXTERNAL]
________________________________
Thanks Steve

I would like to draw attention to Topic 28: Role of Application Comment (page 123, c.)

On a call about RVC/PICs within the past few weeks I raised the concern about the term “informal opposition” and I asked quite clearly if it was considered “public comment” since it was certainly not “formal Objection.” The answer to that question was a resounding YES, specifically sighting that the group was not attempting to create a third type of input process/period beyond “public comment” and “formal Objections,” both of which have very specific rules and timelines linked to them.

When I raised further concern about the need to limit “public comment” (including informal opposition) to the AGB designated “public comment period”, Jeff assured me that language had been adjusted elsewhere in the report to address it (presumably this section). None of the language in Topic 28 does however. Justine Chew also raised concern in the chat (possibly even Paul too), and I even requested to be pointed to that language since I had not seen it yet, but I never received a follow-up.

The reason for this distinction is that in the 2012 round, ICANN permitted “informal opposition” to be submitted days before CPE started for Community applicants. This was years after the AGB advertised “public comment period” had ended, and months after “formal Objections” were completed. That “informal opposition” took direct aim at scoring in CPE (criteria #4).

If “informal opposition” is officially considered “public comment,” and we are not creating a third layer of public input in addition to “public comment” and “formal Objections,” then why does the report suggest there is not group agreement on changing the 2012 practice to prevent last minute “informal opposition” against Community applicants that target CPE scoring? These two agreements/non-agreements are in direct conflict with each other.

Either we require all “informal opposition” to be submitted during the official “public comment period” published in the AGB (as Jeff affirmed on the call), or we are giving ICANN the ability to toss out all applicant predictability and arbitrarily introduce new informal input periods not described in the AGB.

In the bigger picture, and bringing it back to RVC/PICs, if ICANN allows last minute “informal opposition” it could create yet another delay for a Community applicant required to submit RVC/PICs or change their application to protect CPE points, when it could have been handled during the official “public comment period” already described in the AGB. Without addressing this issue, I feel confident that last minute “informal opposition” will once again be used as a gaming tactic in subsequent rounds to target and delay Community applicants during the homestretch.

Happy to answer any questions for those who are not as familiar with how this all unfolded in the 2012 round.

Cheers
Jamie

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>
Date: Friday, August 7, 2020 at 11:36 AM
To: "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>>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review

Dear WG Members,

As discussed and agreed on the 6 August WG call, we have compiled a consolidated list of materials for you all to review in advance of seeking to finalize the draft Final Report for public comment, as early as 13 August 2020.

  *   For review and feedback no later than Thursday, 13 August (and for discussion on the WG call that same day)
     *   Draft Final Report Change Analysis (which will be leveraged for the public comment proceeding):https://docs.google.com/document/d/17oV-BTJGtm2Q6w15qxqtsvRZg6PuW9WHGPOG1KgsjZc/edit
     *   Draft Final Report (minus Predictability Framework and Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction)) attached and available here, on an ongoing basis as the document is updated: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report

  *   Per Emily’s email, comments on the Predictability Framework and the one new additional paragraph in the Closed Generics are due 11 August at 23:59 UTC. Review here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S4aOGxln9b93E_j3eF-dm0E6M8-VYToD8U9AkPlPCS8/edit?usp=sharing. Feedback form is attached.

  *   NEW! - The new draft report section on Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction), comments due 12 August at 23:59 UTC – https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShY7lL07QrFKIDZybdGceXXvb_hmKGHI3qE9bxgDQOo/edit#<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShY7lL07QrFKIDZybdGceXXvb_hmKGHI3qE9bxgDQOo/edit>. Again, feedback form is attached.

Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best,
Steve

Steven Chan

Policy Director, GNSO Support

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536

Email: steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>
Skype: steve.chan55
Mobile: +1.310.339.4410

Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=o7Auz997kA-HPv9PHJCjFVZw7Pgo8krw4MxfqCwBrIU&e=>
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=kWw4fQPNjw2lVKy1UjTxS2F0BmjEAzaDFWNmsYywbmE&e=>
Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_calendar&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=-L6chFfv0OperrXHHpTF722WnH3FZIutn4cS16IvpOg&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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200810/9a843c4a/attachment-0001.html>