ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

[council] Item 9: UPDATE ­ Issue Report for a Potential PDP on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures

  • To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] Item 9: UPDATE ­ Issue Report for a Potential PDP on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures
  • From: Steve Chan <steve.chan@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 00:43:39 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AQHRIyx/35D5jbtacEW853SkjH8h9A==
  • Thread-topic: [council] Item 9: UPDATE ­ Issue Report for a Potential PDP on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures
  • User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/

Dear Councillors,

As mentioned on today¹s GNSO Council time, due to time constraints, staff is
providing an update on the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures via email as opposed to verbally during the meeting.

The public comment for the Preliminary Issue Report closed on 30 October and
a total of 13 comments were received. Before discussing the comments in any
detail, it may be helpful to recall that in regards to the report:
* It contained five groupings of issues, as suggested by the Discussion
Group that preceded the Issue Report
* Within those five groupings were 37 issues, or subjects, each of which was
researched and analyzed to produce background info, a description of issues
around the subject, and a preliminary designation of whether or not the
subject would be likely to warrant policy development - designations which a
possible PDP­WG may end up disagreeing with.
With a few exceptions, public comment was largely supportive of staff's
analysis and recommendations regarding policy development for the majority
of the 37 subjects. There were also a number of comments that were less
about the scope of work and more about the substantive PDP discussions,
which will be provided to the PDP-WG in the event it is initiated.

A few examples of comments that will likely result in changes to the
Preliminary Issue Report include:
* Comments around pricing restrictions, or the lack thereof, as it relates
to premium or trademarked names.
* Comments on the somewhat narrow focus of the security and stability
section, which focused mainly around the existing reviews in the process
(e.g., DNS Stability, technical/operational, etc.), but did not touch on the
impact to the DNS from adding new TLDs in the 2012 round, or from continuing
to add via a next round.
* Concerns around the organization of the report, which for some made it
difficult to locate certain issues and at times, seemed to duplicate certain
topics. They also noted that the progression of subjects in the report was
not necessarily intuitive.
Staff will integrate these comments, as well as others, into the Final Issue

Timeline and Next Steps
Staff will complete the public comment summary and analysis and deliver the
Final Issue Report to this Council by the 7 December motions and documents
deadline, although the intention is to provide earlier to allow for more
time for review. The GNSO Council could consider the Final Issue Report and
possibly initiate a PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures at the 17 December
meeting, where it could also approve the draft charter that will be
included. If a PDP is initiated, a call for volunteers and initiation of PDP
operations could begin shortly thereafter.

If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.


Steven Chan
Sr. Policy Manager

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
direct: +1.310.301.3886
mobile: +1.310.339.4410
tel: +1.310.301.5800
fax: +1.310.823.8649

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

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