[council] RE: [Correspondence] Letter from Steve Crocker to James Bladel, Chair, GNSO Council

[Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

James:

Thank you for your inquiry in regard to Chairman Crocker's August 5th letter to 
you regarding whether "the entirety of the current Subsequent Procedures PDP 
must be completed prior to advancing a new application process under the 
current policy recommendations". I shared the letter with members of the 
Business Constituency and we had a rather lengthy discussion of this subject on 
the BC member call held on Thursday, August 19th.

Based on that conversation I can convey the following preliminary views from 
the BC:

·         The BC is of the general view that if there is to be a subsequent 
round or a permanently open application window, it should not be unnecessarily 
delayed so as to permit the timely submission of .brand applications.

·         That said, the BC believes that the application window should not be 
opened until all necessary reviews have been completed and their reports and 
recommendations have been fully considered by the ICANN community and Board. 
This includes not just the Subsequent Procedures PDP referenced in Chairman 
Crocker's letter but also the RPM Review PDP (of which I am a WG Co-Chair) and 
the Consumer Choice, Competition and Trust Review mandated by the Affirmation 
of Commitments.

·         Chairman Crocker appears to be inquiring as to whether it is possible 
for the Subsequent Procedures PDP to adopt a Work Stream 1 & 2 approach similar 
to the one created for the CCWG on Accountability. The BC knows of no precedent 
for such an approach within a PDP. We also observe that the Charter created for 
a PDP requires it to address, at a minimum, all the subject matter specified in 
the Charter and that it is the general practice of a PDP WG to keep all issues 
open and subject to potential adjustment up to publication of its proposed 
draft report and recommendations. Therefore, we believe that any WS 1 & 2 
approach for any PDP would need to be specified in its initial Charter and, if 
not, would require a Charter amendment to be approved by Council.

·         The BC wishes its Councilors to inquire in regard to what process 
will be followed within Council in forming a response to Chairman Crocker's 
letter.

Beyond those preliminary views, and speaking in a personal capacity informed by 
my Co-Chair position of the RPM Review PDP, I note that our Charter bifurcates 
our work into two phases, with the first being a review of all new gTLD RPMs 
and the second being a review of the UDRP. We are currently adhering to our 
projected work schedule and expect to complete our review of new gTLD RPMs by 
mid-2017 and to deliver a final report and recommendations (following a public 
comment period) to the Council by late 2017. We will then commence the UDRP 
review in early 2018 and have not yet projected how long that second phase 
might take to complete.

I personally see no reason why a subsequent application round would need to 
await completion of the UDRP review. However, it is the strong view of the BC 
that no new application round should commence until our WG's review of the 
efficacy of the RPMs has been completed and any recommendations for change have 
been considered by Council and The Board. While I have not yet discussed this 
matter with the other two Co-Chairs, I personally see no practical means by 
which we could prioritize our phase 1 RPM review into separate work streams; 
further, doing so would require wholesale revision (and consequent disruption) 
of our projected work schedule.

I hope that this rather detailed response is of assistance to you and other 
Council members, and look forward to further initial discussion of this subject 
during our September 1st Council call.

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 James M. Bladel
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 7:13 PM
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] FW: [Correspondence] Letter from Steve Crocker to James 
Bladel, Chair, GNSO Council

Councilors -

Attached, please find a letter form Steve Crocker/ICANN Board to the Council, 
regarding the work on subsequent rounds of New gTLDs.   (Per Wendy's note, the 
letter has not yet been posted on the ICANN Correspondence page, but expected 
soon).

Note that the letter contains a specific request to the GNSO:

'For example, assuming all other review activities are completed, it would be 
helpful to understand whether the GNSO believes that the entirety of the 
current Subsequent Procedures PDP must be completed prior to advancing a new 
application process under the current policy recommendations. The Board is 
cognizant that it may be difficult to provide a firm answer at this stage of 
the process as the reviews are still underway and the PDP is in its initial 
stages of work, but if any consideration has been given in relation to whether 
a future application process could proceed while policy work continues and be 
iteratively applied to the process for allocating new gTLDs, or that a set of 
critical issues could be identified to be addressed prior to a new application 
process, the Board would welcome that input.

 The Board would also welcome any elaboration on the expected time frame 
outlined in the PDP Work Plan, as well as any additional points the GNSO might 
wish to clarify for the Board in its efforts to support the various areas of 
work underway in the multistakeholder community'.
I propose that we add this question/topic, and the letter itself, to our 1 SEP 
meeting agenda as a discussion item, and that we examine ideas on how to 
proceed on responding to this question. If this is amenable, I would also ask 
Staff to draft a brief note to Steve, acknowledging the receipt of this letter 
and noting that it would be discussed during our next meeting.

Thoughts on this approach?

Thank you,

J.




From: Wendy Profit <wendy.profit@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:wendy.profit@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Friday, August 5, 2016 at 14:19
To: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, Glen de 
Saint Géry 
<gnso-secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Steve Crocker 
<steve.crocker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:steve.crocker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
Icann-board ICANN <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
board-support <board-support@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:board-support@xxxxxxxxx>>, Akram 
Atallah <akram.atallah@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:akram.atallah@xxxxxxxxx>>, Erika 
Randall <erika.randall@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:erika.randall@xxxxxxxxx>>, Daniel 
Halloran <daniel.halloran@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:daniel.halloran@xxxxxxxxx>>, Eleeza 
Agopian <eleeza.agopian@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:eleeza.agopian@xxxxxxxxx>>, Jamie 
Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jamie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>>, Karen Lentz 
<karen.lentz@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:karen.lentz@xxxxxxxxx>>, Cyrus Namazi 
<cyrus.namazi@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:cyrus.namazi@xxxxxxxxx>>, Cristina Flores 
<cristina.flores@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:cristina.flores@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [Correspondence] Letter from Steve Crocker to James Bladel, Chair, 
GNSO Council

Dear James Bladel,

Please find the attached letter from Steve Crocker, Chair, ICANN Board of 
Directors regarding subsequent New gTLD rounds.

The letter will be posted shortly to the ICANN Correspondence and New gTLD 
Correspondence pages:

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence
https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/correspondence

With warm regards,

Wendy Profit
ICANN Board Operations Specialist


________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7752 / Virus Database: 4633/12811 - Release Date: 08/15/16