[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Treatment of Minority Statements in the Final Report

Wed Jan 20 18:45:54 UTC 2021

I was just about to reply to Rubens, "Notwithstanding, I echo Maxim's
comment in that it's not an unreasonable request. And it's one that can be
easily met."
.
....and in a flash you've acted on it..... thank you, Jeff.

Justine

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 02:42, Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com> wrote:

> Just to confirm that we are producing another version that has all of the
> minority reports actually attached and will submit that to the Council.
>
>
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>
> Founder & CEO
>
> JJN Solutions, LLC
>
> p: +1.202.549.5079
>
> E: jeff at jjnsolutions.com
>
> http://jjnsolutions.com
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of
> *Rubens Kuhl
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 20, 2021 1:11 PM
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Treatment of Minority Statements in the
> Final Report
>
>
>
>
>
> Jim,
>
>
>
> This is exactly what the co-chairs mentioned during the calls that was
> going to happen. So, there should be no surprise.
>
> And by the time (or times) this was mentioned I heard no objections.
>
>
>
>
>
> Rubens
>
>
>
>
>
> On 20 Jan 2021, at 13:08, Jim Prendergast <jim at GALWAYSG.COM> wrote:
>
>
>
> Cheryl and Jeff
>
>
>
> I’m forwarding the email that delivered the Final Report to the GNSO
> Council.  I didn’t think much of the timing then but it was sent before the
> deadline for Minority Statements elapsed.  Many of the statements were
> submitted prior to transmittal but not all.
>
>
>
> I began to think about this more and when I looked at the section of the
> report that contained the Minority Statements I was surprised to see this:
>
>
>
> <image001.png>
>
> When presented this way, minority statements are significantly diminished
> as the reader has to navigate to an external web page to read them.
>
>
>
> The RPMs WG included minority statements in the Final Report.  And because
> the EPDP Phase 2 was pressed to get the report to the Council, they
> included some in the Final report, but also gave an extended date for
> others to submit theirs. Once those came in, there was an amended Final
> report with all contained in the report.
>
>
>
> By way of this email I am requesting all the minority statements that were
> submitted be fully included in an updated version of the Final Report and
> that be sent to Council as the version of record.  Apologies in advance to
> staff for the additional work but minority statements are an important part
> of the work of the group and should be as easily accessible as other parts
> of the report.
>
>
>
> As Council meets tomorrow and the Board ends their workshop this weekend
> with a session on Sub Pro, I welcome a timely response and resolution.
>
>
>
> Jim Prendergast
>
> The Galway Strategy Group
>
> +1 202-285-3699
>
>
>
> *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Emily
> Barabas
> *Sent:* Monday, January 18, 2021 3:18 PM
> *To:* council at gnso.icann.org
> *Subject:* [council] Final Report - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG
>
>
>
> Dear Councilors,
>
>
>
> Please find attached the Final Report of the New gTLD Subsequent
> Procedures PDP Working Group, which will be discussed under agenda item 6
> of the 21 January GNSO Council meeting.
>
>
>
> Below, you will find a message from the Working Group Co-Chairs regarding
> the Final Report.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Emily
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Council Members,
>
>
>
> The Working Group for the PDP on Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs
> (SubPro) proudly submits its Final Report to the GNSO Council for
> consideration.
>
>
>
> We are happy to report that all but one of the topics received a
> designation of either Full Consensus or Consensus.  Annex C of the Final
> Report provides further detail about the Consensus designations for
> specific outputs under each topic.  Within each of the outputs within the
> topics that received less than Full Consensus, to the extent there were
> more than one Output for that Topic, the table in Annex C sets forth those
> outputs within the topic that achieved Consensus or Full Consensus.  For
> example, in Topic 2, the overall designation for the Topic is “Consensus.”
> That said, Outputs 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 had “Full
> Consensus”, but Output 2.3 had Consensus.
>
>
>
> The PDP Working Group Leadership would like to draw the Council’s
> attention to a few of the items which may require future thought and/or
> discussion.
>
>
>
>    1. *Mitigating DNS Abuse.*  As you are aware, by Letter dated 27 April
>    2020, the SubPro PDP Working Group referred the issue of DNS Abuse in
>    all gTLDs back to the GNSO Council.  As stated in that letter, and repeated
>    in Recommendation 9.15, the Working Group acknowledges ongoing
>    important work in the community on the topic of DNS abuse and believes that
>    a holistic solution is needed to account for DNS abuse in all gTLDs as
>    opposed to dealing with these recommendations with respect to only the
>    introduction of subsequent new gTLDs. In addition, recommending new
>    requirements that would only apply to the new gTLDs added to the root in
>    subsequent rounds could result in singling out those new gTLDs for
>    disparate treatment in contravention of the ICANN Bylaws. Therefore, this
>    PDP Working Group is not making any recommendations with respect to
>    mitigating domain name abuse other than stating that any such future effort
>    must apply to both existing and new gTLDs (and potentially ccTLDs).
>
>
>
>    1. *Closed Generics*.  The Working Group had “Full Consensus” on the
>    fact that we were unable to come to an agreement on what, if anything,
>    should be done with respect to Closed Generics in subsequent rounds (see
>    Topic 23).  This topic was debated for may hours, was the subject of
>    several requests for comments by the community, and had multiple proposals
>    that were discussed, debated and ultimately dismissed.  The fact is that
>    there are compelling arguments both for and against allowing them in
>    subsequent rounds, and no right or wrong answer.  The Working Group
>    believes that if this issue were to be considered in future policy work, it
>    should also involve experts in the areas of competition law, public policy,
>    and economics.  In addition, it should be performed by those in the
>    community that are not associated with any past, present, or expectations
>    of future work in connection with new gTLD applications or objections to
>    new gTLD applications. Absent such independence, any future work is
>    unlikely to result in an outcome any different than the one achieved in
>    this Working Group.
>
>
>
>    1. *Public Interest Commitments / Registry Voluntary Commitments*.
>    Although the substantive proposals in Topic 9 garnered Consensus regarding
>    PICs and RVCs, the ICANN Board raised some questions in its comments to the
>    Draft Final Report about whether requiring PICs/RVCs in subsequent rounds
>    (other than those that were grandfathered) are in line with the 2016 ICANN
>    Bylaws.  This issue, we believe, is not one that can be answered by a PDP
>    Working Group, but rather by the ICANN Board itself with input from the
>    entire community.  Therefore, those recommendations should be read in a
>    manner that assumes that in fact PICs and RVCs can be implemented in the
>    contracts and enforced by ICANN.  There is some discussion of this in Topic
>    9, and proposed ways to implement those PICs/RVCs in a manner that we
>    believe would be compliant, but this may need further discussion within the
>    community as a whole (Not in a PDP).  If for any reason the PIC/RVC
>    Recommendations cannot be implemented with the current Bylaws, the
>    community may either want to engage in a discussion to revise the Bylaws,
>    or alternatively, revise the recommendations to ensure that they are
>    enforceable.
>
>
>
>    1. *Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets*.
>    Topic 35 was the only topic to receive the overall designation of Strong
>    Support but Significant Opposition.
>
> ·        Although many of the elements in those recommendations did get
> Consensus support, there was not consensus on:
>
> (a) whether the auctions of last resort should be done as a sealed bid
> auction where bids are submitted towards the beginning of the process, or
>
> (b) whether private auctions should be allowed to resolve contention sets.
>
> ·        There was consensus on allowing other forms of private
> resolution, such as combining applications, creating new ventures, etc.
>
> ·        But there was no consensus on whether private auctions, where
> each losing applicant splits the proceeds from the winning bid, should
> continue to be allowed in subsequent rounds.
>
>
>
> Our plan is to hold a webinar for the Council and community to attend to
> discuss these matters further. The webinar will be held prior to the
> February Council meeting.
>
>
>
> On behalf of the entire Working Group, we would like to thank the 200+
> members of the group for the thousands of hours of meetings, Adobe Connect
> and Zoom Calls, and In-Person meetings over these past four to five years.
> We also want to thank not just all of the Constituencies and Stakeholder
> Groups that actively participated, but also the ALAC and GAC for all of
> their input, dedication and support.  Finally, we could not have done this
> without the support and expertise or Steve, Julie and Emily from ICANN Org.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Jeff Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr
>
> SubPro PDP Chairs
>
>
>
>
>
> Emily Barabas
>
> Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
>
> www.icann.org
>
>
>
>
>
> <Final Report - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG  - 18 Jan 2021.pdf>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210121/2a6d4f17/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 20557 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20210121/2a6d4f17/image001-0001.png>