ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: Johan Helsingius <julf@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] [Correspondence] Letter from Steve Crocker to James Bladel, Chair, GNSO Council
  • From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:38:21 -0300
  • Authentication-results: mail.nic.br (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.br
  • Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nic.br; s=dkim; t=1474483101; bh=BSmeoJ99cxHdfGHvO7WYtYY3k80DUL6gaaYRrqdNZ4Y=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=peVOIC2Hvd5wEhBsI7zjUQdmqbg3VhZsKTUKp7Qe3F5iOIHEfUKXFeKWDjdTE6f5m QXgPzBiam4iG3xe2UnFz3DsNx50MpGb4VtbGELAsqBOY/3pfr4Ysa4/xsvPW0emGMl eWZUPabGlI6v6ugrAL4jmCWuVVPbAs4PEVVxWSPA=
  • Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.1 mail.nic.br 5F8D420520F
  • In-reply-to: <f1c1328e-8760-09fb-671f-1582b02e4ebc@julf.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <1C6DEE17-CEFE-4E19-A068-BEAEAEBF4491@icann.org> <D3D11D4D.CFCF8%jbladel@godaddy.com> <8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E21209198@Exchange.sierracorporation.com> <84602057272D45388A395EE4F665460A@WUKPC> <f1c1328e-8760-09fb-671f-1582b02e4ebc@julf.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> Em 21 de set de 2016, à(s) 14:48:000, Johan Helsingius <julf@xxxxxxxx> 
> escreveu:
> Wolf-Ulrich,
>> 1.    Both the letter from the Board and the letter from the GNSO
>> Council seem to start with the assumption that there will necessarily be
>> a subsequent round of the new gTLD program. The ISPCP constituency hopes
>> that a full discussion about whether or not to have a further round is
>> had by the community long before work is done on building a new
>> application process. It seems essential that the marketplace and
>> technical reviews are complete and considered by the community. These
>> need to be part of the foundation of any discussion of whether or not to
>> proceed with subsequent rounds of new gTLD applications.
> Indeed. I am concerned about the way a lot of people seem to
> assume a subsequent round will happen. I feel we have to
> wait for the results of the reviews before making up our minds.

The original policy actually defined that it wouldn't be a one-time event or an 
experimental process... it was defined as recurring and in rounds. The 
implementation foresaw a new round happening one year after the 2012-round, and 
it's possible that some parties factored that into their decision to apply or 

... whether this was wise or not is up for discussion in two workgroups and two 
review efforts (besides ones already completed. In the particular question 
"should new subsequent procedures happen", consensus has already been achieved 
on them to happen, so in this case both existing policy and prospective policy 
are on the same page. 


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