Hi

I just randomly peeked at a couple proposals and note this questionnaire response:

d. Were consultations with end users appropriate? Which groups were consulted? What were the nature and content of these consultations?:

N/A


Hardly unique but still somehow a wee bit sad.

Bill

On Jul 9, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi,

The RSEP is the policy process by which exceptions in the policies
governing a Registry are made.  Using the RESP is part of the policy, so
that one size fits all policy can be altered to fit specific cases.

This RSEP request is currently in comment period.  After recommendations
will be made to the Board which has the ultimate authority to decide.

Process is defined in
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-bd-2012-02-25-en

avri




On 09-Jul-14 17:03, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Perhaps someone could care to educate me further on how things work in
ICANN. If a request as the one contained in this announcement is
received by ICANN, do they review such proposal based on the existing
policies? and if they do, and determine that a proposal does not fit
into existing policy/guidelines, is it right for ICANN staff to suggest
updating existing processes to allow a proposal go through?

This is the way I understood this particular call and I hope someone can
confirm that my understanding is incorrect.

Thanks!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.

__
ICANN <http://www.icann.org/>


   News Alert

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-07-08-en

------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names for .DEALS, XN--FJQ720A,
   .CITY, .XYZ, .COLLEGE, .GOP, .TRADE, .WEBCAM, .BID, .HEALTHCARE,
   .WORLD, .BAND

8 July 2014



*Forum Announcement:* Comment Period Opens on *Date:* 8 July 2014
*Categories/Tags:*

     o Top-Level Domains
     o Second-Level Domains
     o Contracted Party Agreements
     o Security/Stability

*Purpose (Brief):*

Six (6) Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP) requests were
submitted by the registry operators listed below to allow the
introduction of two-character domain names for the below TLDs. In total,
the requests concern 12 New gTLDs.

Proposal TLD Registry Name Documents
2014027 healthcare
world
band Binky Lake, LLC* Binky Lake, LLC Request 25 June 2014
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/binky-lake-healthcare-world-band-request-25jun14-en.pdf>
[PDF, 16 KB]
2014024 trade
webcam
bid Elite Registry Limited Elite Registry Limited Request 16 June 2014
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/elite-registry-trade-request-16jun14-en.pdf>
[PDF, 16 KB]
2014023 gop Republican State Leadership Committee, Inc. Republican
State Leadership Committee, Inc. Request 12 June 2014
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rslc-gop-request-12jun14-en.pdf>
[PDF, 15 KB]
2014022 xyz
college XYZ.COM <http://XYZ.COM>, LLC XYZ.COM, LLC Request 12 June
2014
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/xyz-xyz-college-request-12jun14-en.pdf>
[PDF, 18 KB]
2014016 city Binky Lake, LLC* Binky Lake, LLC Request 6 June 2014
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/binky-lake-city-request-06jun14-en.pdf>
[PDF, 16 KB]
2014015 deals
xn--fjq720a Binky Lake, LLC* Binky Lake, LLC Request 6 June 2014
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/binky-lake-deals-forsale-xn--fjq720a-request-06jun14-en.pdf>
[PDF, 16 KB]

*Note: Binky Lake, LLC has submitted three RSEP requests on behalf of
Donuts, Inc. for 6 gTLDs

As part of these requests, each registry operator described which
two-character domain names for which it would offer these registrations.
These RSEP requests were posted for public information on the Registry
Service Evaluation Process webpage, available at
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rsep-2014-02-19-en.

As required by the Registry Services Evaluation Policy
<https://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html>, ICANN has
undertaken a preliminary determination on whether the proposals might
raise significant competition, security or stability issues. ICANN's
preliminary review (based on the information provided) did not identify
any such issues for these requests.

Implementation of the proposal would require amendments to the Exhibit
A, Approved Services of the respective Registry Agreements, which are
being posted for public comment.

*Public Comment Box Link:*
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/two-char-new-gtld-2014-07-08-en
<https://www.icann.org//public-comments/two-char-new-gtld-2014-07-08-en>



This message was sent to [log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> from:

ICANN News Alert | [log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite
300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536