ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] - Preliminary Issue Report - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures

  • To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@xxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] - Preliminary Issue Report - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
  • From: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:54:33 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • In-reply-to: <D1F8E317.1EB1F%steve.chan@icann.org>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <D1F8E317.1EB1F%steve.chan@icann.org>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AQHQ2fQ3MIPLeEXfTECYOC5+tAR+6p4Tm8uQ
  • Thread-topic: [council] - Preliminary Issue Report - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures

Steve:

I have raised this within the BC and so far all the feedback favors delay of 
publication to September 3 to allow for Council review, followed by an extended 
public comment period of greater than 40 days so that it closes post-Dublin.

Best regards, Philip

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Steve Chan
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 4:27 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] - Preliminary Issue Report - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures

Dear Councilors,

Staff is on track to be able to deliver the Preliminary Issue Report on New 
gTLD Subsequent Procedures for public comment by the end of August, as 
discussed on the previous GNSO Council meeting. However, I wanted to note that 
during the meeting, the possibility of providing for an extended public comment 
period was also discussed, which would keep it open through the ICANN54 
meeting. This topic is expected to be on the agenda for the next Council 
meeting, scheduled for 03 September and as such, it may make sense to delay the 
publication of the report by approximately 3 days to allow for discussion 
during the meeting and a decision to be made, to avoid confusion from possibly 
amending the comment close date. The impact appears to be minimal:

  *   Publish 31 August -> 40 Day Public Comment -> Close 10 October (note that 
this is a Saturday)
  *   Publish 3 September -> 40 Day Public Comment -> Close 13 October
  *   Publish 3 September -> 60 Day (for instance) Public Comment -> Close 2 
November
Staff is leaning towards waiting the three days and immediately putting in the 
request to publish the Preliminary Issue Report after a decision is made, but 
wanted to be sure there were no strong objections to this approach.

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


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>