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

[Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Avri;

Under the process we are currently following, the Staff endeavors to post 
formal submissions by proponents of any new GNSO constituencies as 
expeditiously as possible for a 30-day public/community comment forum.  That 
would apply to the City TLD group or any other applicant.  Under normal 
circumstances, a new petition would then be submitted to the Board at its next 
meeting after completion of the public comment period; but the exact date any 
item appears on the Board's meeting agenda is a Board matter that is not under 
Staff's control.

I hope that's helpful feedback.

Best,

Rob Hoggarth


On 4/21/09 4:24 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

So can I take that to mean that if the City TLD group finished their
formal statement shortly after the deadline, too late for a 30 day
review before the next board meeting, you  would be able initiate
another  30 day review shortly after they submitted the formal
petition and their application would then be on a Board agenda some
reasonable time after the end of that comment period?  And this would
also apply to any other hitherto unknown application?

thanks
a.



On 21 Apr 2009, at 18:09, Robert Hoggarth wrote:

> 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
>
>