[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6

Aikman-Scalese, Anne AAikman at lrrc.com
Wed Jul 15 22:21:42 UTC 2020 

Section 2.3.2 on RVCs and PICs says in Recommendation xx (Rationale 4) that ICANN MUST allow RVCs to be added after the application submission date in order to respond to public comments, objection, GAC Early Warnings, and/or GAC Consensus Advice.  So obviously RVCs can be adopted in a context other than “formal objection”.  That section then refers us to the Application Change Request section.

Thus, in Section 2.4 Application Change Requests, it appears we may have to amend the following language in a.


Recommendation xx (rationale 2): ICANN org must document the types of changes which are required to be posted for public comment and which are not required to be posted for public comment. The following is a non-exhaustive list of changes that must require public comment:

·         The addition of Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections (whether formal or informal), GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings

·         Changes to Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections, GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings

·         Changes associated with the formation of joint ventures (see Recommendation xx below)


From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:53 PM
To: 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk at nic.br>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6

Right Rubens – just looking for the language that confirms that because the section on Objections now says in d. that this applies where RVCs are adopted in response to concerns raised in a FORMAL objection.

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:49 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6


My take is that unless the RVC is already filed in the application, when it will be subject by comments as all applications, will trigger application change request which includes public comments.
Why would that not be so ?


Rubens


On 15 Jul 2020, at 18:38, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>> wrote:

Thanks Jamie.  I’m looking for the language in the draft Final Report that confirms your understanding.  As mentioned below, Subsection d. has some added language stating that RVCs adopted in response to “concerns raised in a formal objection” will be considered application changes.

Maybe Jeff or staff can advise where we would find that RVCs adopted in response to concerns expressed by a party that has not yet filed such “formal objection” would also be subject to application change request and public comment.  (It may be in the section on Registry Voluntary Commitments”, but I am just looking for confirmation that all RVCs, regardless of the stage in which they are proposed to address concerns, trigger application change request procedures and public comment on the RVCs.
Anne

From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter at spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter at spimarketing.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:34 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6

[EXTERNAL]
________________________________
Hey Anne

I do not believe that all informal objection is weighted equally (or at the level of formal objection) – at least that was our experience in the 2012 round – therefore not all informal objection necessarily invokes an application change request. That said, I do see opportunities where informal objection may invoke an application change request, such as in CPE to address a “letter of objection” targeting points in criteria 4.

It has been my understanding that any application change request that extends beyond administrative adjustments to an application goes out for public comment – which I believe is the catch net to address your concerns below. I have never assumed that change requests stemming from informal objection are exempt from public comment. Do I understand that correctly?

Jamie


From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>
Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 5:07 PM
To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter at spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter at spimarketing.com>>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas 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>>
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6

Yes – Jamie – that would be my understanding. The question posed relates to the fact that the later paragraph says that RVCs developed in response to a “formal objection” invoke an application change request and require public comment.  I hope we have not inadvertently created an exception to this requirement in relation to RVCs adopted in response to an “informal” objection.
Anne

From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter at spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter at spimarketing.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:29 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6

[EXTERNAL]
________________________________
Hey Anne

My interpretation of “formal objection” would be those that are paid for via a dispute resolution provider, not to be confused with any other objection expressed in public comment or other format, including the ICANN correspondence page.

Jamie


From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>
Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 4:19 PM
To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas 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>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6

On Package 6, please see below:

1. re 2.6.1 re “Application Queuing”, the language shown below should be modified because the previous section is drafted as “more than 125” and the section below is drafted as “less than 125”.  Language should be revised does not cover what happens if you get exactly 125 IDN applications:


     *   If there are (delete “less than”) 125 or fewer applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be assigned priority numbersprocessed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application.

2. Section 2.8.1 – Objections
I don’t understand why we would remove affirmations of Recommendation 2 and Recommendation 3 from this section.  The fact that these Affirmations are affirmed elsewhere in the report does not change their relevance in relation to the subject of Objections.  Please clarify whether these Affirmations are “in” or “out.”  They don’t appear to be deleted but there are comments on the side saying they should be.

Recommendation xx (rationale 3) Throughout this rationale, the word, “formal” has been inserted in front of the word, “objection”.  What is the meaning/need for the insertion of “formal” before “objection”?  Is there a thought that there are “informal” objection processes?  This language also appears in Rationale 6 and there are NUMEROUS insertions of this reference in the Section on Deliberations.  Is there some intended effect here with respect to Subsection d. which specifies that a change in Registry Voluntary Commitments that is made in response to a “formal objection” invokes an application change process?  Is the idea that if there are RVCs that are agreed OUTSIDE the “formal objection” process (i.e. via an “informal” objection), those RVCs are somehow NOT subject to an application change process and related public comment?   I thought we had established that all new RVCs need to be subject to an application change process and public comment.

3. Section 2.9.1 Community Applications – Subsection c. “New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable.”
Thanks for deleting the reference to the conclusion that the IRT should be the body that determines any needed changes to the CPE Guidelines.  However, what was discussed when the “can’t live with” comments were reviewed is that there is a need to specify that the WG is seeking public comment on the CPE Guidelines.  We should be specifying at this point in the text that we are seeking that comment and we should provide the link at this same point in the text so that we call attention to the request for public comment on the CPE Guidelines (but not the scoring.)

Thank you,
Anne

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 10:44 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6

[EXTERNAL]
________________________________
Dear all,

The following are now available for your review in the production document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit?usp=sharing%20%5bdocs.google.com%5d>. The deadline for comments is Wednesday 15 July at 23:59 UTC.

  1.  Package 7 sections of the Report are now ready for “Can’t Live With” review (beginning on page 148<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit>):

     *   Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format.
     *   Package 7 includes two report sections:

        *   2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed on 11 June<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP>) - For this section, please limit “Can’t Live With” comments to the new text in the section, which is displayed in black. The text in grey has already gone through “Can’t Live With” review as part of an earlier package.
        *   2.3.2 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) / Public Interest Commitments (PICs) (last discussed on 18 June<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP>)

     *   Comments will be tracked here<https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw>.


  1.  Package 6 revisions of the report, now ready for a final check (beginning on page 118<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit>):

     *   Please limit feedback to errors in the edits, for example a revision that you believe does not accurately reflect the outcome of discussions about a “Can’t Live With” item.
     *   Please send this type of feedback to the mailing list. Typo corrections can be sent directly to staff.
     *   For package 6 sections, please do not raise new issues, introduce new “Can’t Live With” items, or re-open deliberations.
     *   A high-level summary of the “Can’t Live With” input received is available here<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report>. And a detailed log with the outcomes from the WG’s consideration of that input is available here<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1blgQjzh_vR7WQ1utsqBnHDb8_b2DD7IDQu-bcJVsmTQ/edit?usp=sharing>.
Kind regards,
Emily


Emily Barabas
Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
www.icann.org<http://www.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.

________________________________

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<mailto: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.


________________________________

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/20200715/f1cc0ae2/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list