ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

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

  • To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@xxxxxx>, Johan Helsingius <julf@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] [Correspondence] Letter from Steve Crocker to James Bladel, Chair, GNSO Council
  • From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 10:12:28 +0200
  • Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=key-systems.net; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type :in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date:date:message-id:from :from:references:to:subject:subject; s=dkim; t=1474531948; x= 1475395949; bh=E4bbwdVoHhAJ5ndYny41cUJsKPsOmeEbZgz+USF0keU=; b=K bPAVPXZ7ENJi4EFa7QiNcPbzr806jo+0QVNum6gS2TttmWAmokAlJxtLnjlSjqlg srNrU4S3o7A93SYSdqaLf8+j8oEPgHBSFsVTjncrrFrdSfCJIgudrEk3/el6C1EN oYOp3cyudZktoiv5E1LEX139Gwk4H6Rg3sJHfoNVAs=
  • In-reply-to: <1A9F3641-1DD4-4BC1-8863-4326FBB895B2@nic.br>
  • 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> <1A9F3641-1DD4-4BC1-8863-4326FBB895B2@nic.br>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0


I am with Rubens on this. The question is not if but how and when there will be a next round. Policy decisions regarding the last round all have the assumption that there shall be a next round baked into them. If we want to change that or have a discussion whether or not there should be a next round, we first need to change all those prior policy decisions.

Even the subsequent rounds WG currently ongoing is not focussed on considering the IF but rather on the question of HOW. There are studies that have to happen before there can be a next round, and there will likely be changes from how the last round was handled based on the learnings of that round, but the community has committed to this process.

Volker



Am 21.09.2016 um 20:38 schrieb Rubens Kuhl:

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 
not...

... 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.





Rubens



--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede 
Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist 
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per 
E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

--------------------------------------------

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems

CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is 
addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this 
email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an 
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the 
author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.






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