Re: [council] GNSO Council Response to the ICANN Board

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Steve.

Councilors:  Please submit comments/edits by the extended deadline, and 
Heather, Donna & I will work with Staff to transmit this letter to the Board.

Thank you,

J.

On 10/18/16, 17:33 , "Steve Chan" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of 
steve.chan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

    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>