Re: [council] Formal Petition and Charter of Proposed IDNgTLD Constituency

[Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Avri:

Your general assumption about timing is correct.  Your questions otherwise 
assume a level of planning and control that does not exist.  Staff has been 
handling the various new constituencies as they have come along (i.e., a 
rolling basis). So far there have been four serious expression of interest. 
While three proponents have worked to get before the Board as soon as possible, 
the other has taken a less expedited approach to the process.

I think the timing and pace of the more recent proponents (IDNgTLDs and 
Consumers) has been faster because they have had previous examples to build on 
(CyberSafety). The City TLD group is the only one that has yet to submit its 
formal petition and charter.

Staff is currently unaware of any other serious proponents who are considering 
stepping forward.

Best,

Rob Hoggarth



On 4/21/09 2:02 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

thanks for the update.

So this means we have 3 candidates for constituency in this pass (I
really have a lot of trouble navigating the current web site - iu am
sure it just me because it is improved, but i used ot know how to find
things.)?  I am assuming that the review period ends in time for these
to be acted on by the board before the June meeting and before any new
stakeholder groups would actually take their seats.

BTW, will other new constituencies be considered on a rolling basis, or
is staff planning to batch them.  And if the policy staff has decided to
batch them, what is the time interval for the next batch?

thanks

a.


On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 13:52 -0700, Robert Hoggarth wrote:
> Dear Kristina, Avri and other GNSO Council members:
>
> The IDNgTLD proponents have modified their petition and charter to
> correct the "typos" Kristina identified.  The revised document is
> attached as an FYI.
>
> The Public Comment Forum is likely to be opened later today.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rob Hoggarth