RE: [council] Item 9: UPDATE ­ Issue Report for a Potential PDP on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures

["Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the update Steve

Good news that this is on track for Council consideration on 17 December.

Donna

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Steve Chan
Sent: Thursday, 19 November 2015 4:44 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Item 9: UPDATE ­ Issue Report for a Potential PDP on New 
gTLDs Subsequent Procedures

Dear Councillors,

As mentioned on today’s GNSO Council time, due to time constraints, staff is 
providing an update on the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent 
Procedures via email as opposed to verbally during the meeting.

The public comment for the Preliminary Issue Report closed on 30 October and a 
total of 13 comments were received. Before discussing the comments in any 
detail, it may be helpful to recall that in regards to the report:

  *   It contained five groupings of issues, as suggested by the Discussion 
Group that preceded the Issue Report
  *   Within those five groupings were 37 issues, or subjects, each of which 
was researched and analyzed to produce background info, a description of issues 
around the subject, and a preliminary designation of whether or not the subject 
would be likely to warrant policy development - designations which a possible 
PDP–WG may end up disagreeing with.
With a few exceptions, public comment was largely supportive of staff's 
analysis and recommendations regarding policy development for the majority of 
the 37 subjects. There were also a number of comments that were less about the 
scope of work and more about the substantive PDP discussions, which will be 
provided to the PDP-WG in the event it is initiated.

A few examples of comments that will likely result in changes to the 
Preliminary Issue Report include:

  *   Comments around pricing restrictions, or the lack thereof, as it relates 
to premium or trademarked names.
  *   Comments on the somewhat narrow focus of the security and stability 
section, which focused mainly around the existing reviews in the process (e.g., 
DNS Stability, technical/operational, etc.), but did not touch on the impact to 
the DNS from adding new TLDs in the 2012 round, or from continuing to add via a 
next round.
  *   Concerns around the organization of the report, which for some made it 
difficult to locate certain issues and at times, seemed to duplicate certain 
topics. They also noted that the progression of subjects in the report was not 
necessarily intuitive.
Staff will integrate these comments, as well as others, into the Final Issue 
Report.

Timeline and Next Steps
Staff will complete the public comment summary and analysis and deliver the 
Final Issue Report to this Council by the 7 December motions and documents 
deadline, although the intention is to provide earlier to allow for more time 
for review. The GNSO Council could consider the Final Issue Report and possibly 
initiate a PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures at the 17 December meeting, 
where it could also approve the draft charter that will be included. If a PDP 
is initiated, a call for volunteers and initiation of PDP operations could 
begin shortly thereafter.

If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.

Best,




Steven Chan
Sr. Policy Manager

ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
steve.chan@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:steve.chan@xxxxxxxxx>
direct: +1.310.301.3886
mobile: +1.310.339.4410
tel: +1.310.301.5800
fax: +1.310.823.8649