Re: [council] GNSO Council Response to the ICANN Board
Dear Councilors,
We are nearing the suggested deadline for feedback on the draft GNSO Council
response to the ICANN Board and no additional input has yet been received. I
would like to suggest that an additional 12 hours be provided for input (1159
UTC on Wednesday, 19 October) after which, if none is received, staff will work
with Council leadership to have the letter sent as currently drafted.
The draft letter is attached for your convenience.
Best,
Steve
On 10/13/16, 12:59 PM, "Steve Chan" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of
steve.chan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Councilors,
Pursuant to the GNSO Council call on 13 October, staff is circulating the
latest draft of the Council response to the ICANN Board regarding the New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures timeline and work plan. I do not recall a deadline being
specified, but staff would like to suggest that all comments be received by
23:59 UTC on Tuesday, 18 October, in order to allow for any edits to be made or
voting to take place if that becomes necessary - the intent is to ensure timely
transmission of the letter to the ICANN Board prior to ICANN57.
Best,
Steve
On 10/10/16, 6:56 PM, "Steve Chan" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf
of steve.chan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Councilors,
In support of the Motion put forth by Carlos below, please find the
draft GNSO Council response to the ICANN Board as prepared by Carlos, Phil,
James, Keith, and Stefania. The letter is intended to synthesize the responses
received from the community while also noting where common views were
identified. This drafting group and staff welcome your comments and suggested
edits.
Best,
Steve
On 10/3/16, 6:41 PM, "owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Carlos
Raúl Gutiérrez G." <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dear Glen,
Dear Councillors
I submit this motion to approve during our next call on 13 Oct a
response to Chairman Crocker´s letter from August 5th 2016, and ask
for
secondment:
<Text>
Motion on the GNSO Council Response to the ICANN Board Letter on
New
gTLD Subsequent Procedures
Made by: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
Seconded by:
WHEREAS,
On 5 August 2016, the GNSO Council received a letter from Dr.
Stephen
Crocker seeking an understanding of the New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures
Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group’s (WG) requirements
and
timing related to advancing a new application process.
On 16 August 2016, the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the
letter
and informed the ICANN Board that initial discussions within the
GNSO
Council and more broadly, within the GNSO community and New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, were anticipated.
On 12 September 2016, the GNSO Council sent a letter to all of the
GNSO’s Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, and the New gTLD
Subsequent
Procedures PDP WG seeking input to help formulate the Council’s
response to the ICANN Board.
The GNSO Council received an important number of responses and
divergent
positions from many different individuals as well a constituencies
within the GNSO community, as well as from the New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures PDP WG.
RESOLVED,
The GNSO Council has synthesized the positions received and
prepared a
response to the ICANN Board.
The GNSO Council looks forward to ongoing discussions with the
broader
community, particularly at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, India.
The GNSO Council expects to continue to consult with the New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures PDP WG to determine if there are any
significant
changes to its schedule or scope of work as defined in its charter.
<text end>
Respectfully
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
Forwarded message:
> From: Steve Chan <steve.chan@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Drazek, Keith
> <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Stefania.Milan@xxxxxx <Stefania.Milan@xxxxxx>, Emily Barabas
> <emily.barabas@xxxxxxxxx>, Julie Hedlund
<julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>,
> Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - GNSO Council
Response to
> the ICANN Board
> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 22:34:18 +0000
>
> All,
>
> Carlos, thank you for your comments. Seeing no volunteers to hold
the
> pen, staff is happy to prepare an initial draft for your
> consideration, especially given the contracted timelines until
the
> next Council meeting.
>
> With a vote expected to consider and approve this letter at the
13
> October 2016 GNSO Council meeting, staff has prepared a draft
motion,
> also for your consideration. Unfortunately, the document and
motion
> deadline is today – any volunteers to put forth this motion (with
> any necessary edits of course)?
>
> We will try to provide the draft letter as soon as possible, as
> ideally, it should be available with the motion,
>
> Best,
>
> Steve
>
> From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 3:00 PM
> To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Drazek, Keith"
> <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "Stefania.Milan@xxxxxx" <Stefania.Milan@xxxxxx>, Emily Barabas
> <emily.barabas@xxxxxxxxx>, Julie Hedlund
<julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>,
> Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - GNSO Council
Response to
> the ICANN Board
>
> Thank you vey much Steve for the excellent overview of the
comments to
> Chairman´s Crocker letter to date. From my personal point of
view, I
> belong to the group of the subsequent procedures PDP, that
wonders
> what the (short term vs. long term) context of the question is.
And
> just because of that, I´m a strong supporter of a very
conservative
> stance.
>
> My initial suggestion for a clear formulation of a response at
the
> Council level, is to structure around the main (contentious)
> issues/areas, including its pro and con arguments, instead of
listing
> the source of all the different positions. From that perspective
I see
> 4 main areas/chapters for a structure of the response:
>
> 1. All the pending studies and PDPs that are analyzing the impact
or
> the 2012 round and will produce related recommendations: RPM,
> Subsequent procedures and CCT-RT. (In general it worked well, but
it
> needs more refinement)
>
> 2. The question if the 2007 ¨policy¨ is strong enough for
subsequent
> procedures without any mayor changes.
>
> 2.a including the policy equal treatment of all applications
(without
> any categorization), as compared to restrictions over certain
groups
> of possible new TLDs (Geographic names, Communities, etc.)
>
> 3. if the AGB is strong enough as a ¨predictable application
> process¨ for subsequent procedures, and if not, which type of
> revisions it needs
>
> 3.a including the question of global fairness (or underserved
areas)
>
> 4. if the ¨implementation/delegation¨ of new gTLDs of the last
round
> was good enough, or there are few lessons that should be
carefully
> analyzed and improvements introduced before new delegations
>
> After reading the summary document I see how a general consensus
gets
> more and more difficult, as we go down the list here proposed.
Then it
> should be pretty obvious that the Boards main question should be
> answered with a pretty clear ¨NO shortcuts¨.
>
> But I also want to hear what the other members of the team think.
>
> Carlos Raúl
>
> El 30 sept 2016, a las 16:20, Steve Chan <steve.chan@xxxxxxxxx>
> escribió:
>
> <Input - ICANN Board Letter on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures -
27
> Sept 2016.docx>
Attachment:
GNSO Council Response_Work Plan and Timeline for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG_With Comments_10Oct2016_Clean[2].docx Attachment:
smime.p7s
|