FYI.
Please note that the GNSO Council letter itself asks for further SG & C
views.
If we have one, we may want to say something.
Here are the links provided in the PDF version of the letter for BC and
ALAC comment referenced.
Business Constituency feedback:
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61609264/BC Comments on
Board Letter 20 August
2016.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1473356029656&api=v2
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61609264/BC%20Comments%20on%20Board%20Letter%2020%20August%202016.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1473356029656&api=v2>
ALAC Comments made in 1 September GNSO Council meeting (beginning on
page 33):
https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-01sep16-en.pdf
avri
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: Request for input from the GNSO Council
regarding the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 03:52:01 +0000
From: Jeff Neuman <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
All,
Please find enclosed a letter we received today from the GNSO Council
Chair. I have reproduced the text below for those not wanting to open
the PDF doc. The letter asks for our input by *September 25^th * so
that the Council can discuss on its September 29^th call. This is
obviously not much time, so discussion is encouraged on the list. I am
also going to ask that each of the Sub-team chairs cover this letter on
their next calls and we will also discuss this on our next full group
call on Monday the 19^th .
Please let us know if you have any questions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
12 September 2016
GNSO COUNCIL REQUEST FOR INPUT REGARDING NEW GTLD SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURES
Dear Stakeholder Group, Constituency and new gTLD Subsequent Procedures
Chairs,
On 5 August 2016, the GNSO Council received a letter from the ICANN
Board requesting feedback on the timing of subsequent procedures for new
gTLDs. The GNSO Council is now seeking input from Stakeholder Groups,
Constituencies and the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG to help
inform the Council’s response to the Board. The Council anticipates an
initial review of this input during its meeting on 29 September in view
of finalizing its response during the 13 October meeting, so the earlier
your input is received, the better but it should be received no later
than 25 September.
In its letter, the Board asked the GNSO Council to provide its
perspectives on the work plan of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP
and the timing of a new application process for gTLDs:
The Board is interested in the GNSO’s view of its current work in light
of the existing policy recommendations and related review activities…For
example, assuming all other review activities are completed, it would be
helpful to understand whether the GNSO believes that the entirety of the
current Subsequent Procedures PDP must be completed prior to advancing a
new application process under the current policy recommendations. The
Board is cognizant that it may be difficult to provide a firm answer at
this stage of the process as the reviews are still underway and the PDP
is in its initial stages of work, but if any consideration has been
given in relation to whether a future application process could proceed
while policy work continues and be iteratively applied to the process
for allocating new gTLDs, or that a set of critical issues could be
identified to be addressed prior to a new application process, the Board
would welcome that input.
The Board would also welcome any elaboration on the expected time frame
outlined in the PDP Work Plan, as well as any additional points the GNSO
might wish to clarify for the Board in its efforts to support the
various areas of work underway in the multistakeholder community.
The Business Constituency has already held discussions about the Board’s
question and shared its views with the Council. In addition, the ALAC
liaison to the GNSO Council gave ALAC input during the Council’s last
meeting. Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies and the new gTLD Subsequent
Procedures PDP WG are encouraged to review this input in formulating
responses within their own groups.
The GNSO Council anticipates that this issue will be a topic of
community discussion at ICANN57 in November and therefore seeks to
provide a response to the Board prior to ICANN57. We look forward to
receiving your input.
With best regards,
Donna Austin, GNSO Vice Chair James Bladel, GNSO Chair Heather Forrest,
GNSO Vice Chair
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA***| *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>or
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw
*From:*Emily Barabas [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
*Sent:* Monday, September 12, 2016 3:27 PM
*Subject:* Request for input from the GNSO Council regarding the New
gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG
Dear Jeff and Avri,
As you know, the GNSO Council received a letter from the ICANN Board on
5 August requesting feedback on the timing of subsequent procedures for
new gTLDs. The GNSO Council is now seeking input from the New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group, Stakeholder Groups, and
Constituencies to help inform the Council’s response.
Please see the attached letter from the GNSO Council with additional
information regarding its request. *Note that the deadline for feedback
is* *25 September*. Steve, Julie, and I look forward discussing how we
can support the Working Group in preparing a response.
Kind regards,
Emily
*Emily Barabas *| Policy Specialist
*ICANN*| Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Phone:
+31 (0)6 84507976
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
[log in to unmask]
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
|
