[NCSG-PC] Letter on ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs

[Kathy Kleiman]

The problem here is that Jeff and SubPro are trying to change the 
underlying assumptions that ICANN Org is using to build its systems (to 
process New gTLDs). Our problem is not with ICANN Org (from what I can 
see), but with Jeff who as chair of SubPro WG (who represents certain 
very aggressive registries) wants to lift the current cap of 1000 new 
gTLDs a year, force ICANN Org to accept unlimited changes to the New 
/gTLD /applications, etc.

These changes to the rules of new gTLD applications will wreak havoc in 
the system. In this case, from what I can see, ICANN Org, NCSG and the 
larger Community have the same interest -- we are collectively part of 
the group which /reviews new gtld //applications. /We will be reading 
them, filing comments and concerns, raising objections, and exercising 
other oversight -- all time consuming and sometimes expensive processes. 
We need time to do our jobs properly, and not a ridiculous number of 
applications.  ICANN Org is saying similar things.  These themes was 
central to the NCSG comments prepared by Bruna and Elsa and submitted to 
SubPro WG months ago.

Our concerns, I think, are not with ICANN Org (and I went to their 
meeting with both SubPro and the GAC), but with Jeff and the registries 
who want to change many of the rules.  If he can force rule changes 
through SubPro WG, ICANN Org will have to follow. Meetings of SubPro WG 
this Monday and Thursday, including raising the limits of applications 
to (potentially) thousands a year (when ICANN Org is preparing for up to 
1000 per year) and "global public interest" (voluntary commitments 
including censorship).

Best, Kathy

On 7/3/2019 2:00 PM, Elsa S wrote:
> I think it would be worthwhile, assuming our comments and discussions 
> will not be pushed aside and would only stand as a “discussion with 
> all counterparts in the multistakeholder community” only.
>
> With a new coordination group from NCSG to the subpro, I think we 
> could possibly organize for a call and discuss this at length if 
> unanimous agreement is found on this!
>
> E.
> —
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:35 PM Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi all,
>
>     there was communication from Cyrus Nemazi to all SO/AC/SG/C
>     regarding the assumptions
>     (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/readiness-support-future-rounds-new-gtlds-07jun19-en.pdf)
>     for the implementation of subpro policy recommendations and new
>     round for gTLD
>     https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/namazi-to-perrin-17jun19-en.pdf
>     .
>
>     the letter is asking for engagement with NCSG. For those who
>     attended the GNSO Council wrap-up session last week, there was
>     discussion on how the council should deal with this request and
>     leaving it to SG/C instead.
>
>     I am asking here if we need a meeting with Cyrus and his team
>     after reviewing the implementation assumptions.
>
>     Best,
>
>     Rafik
>     _______________________________________________
>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
> -- 
> --
>
> Elsa Saade
> Consultant
> Gulf Centre for Human Rights
> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20190705/42ee10ca/attachment.htm>