<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] Draft Motion - GNSO Council Response to the ICANN Board
- To: "Géry Glen de Saint" <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council List" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] Draft Motion - GNSO Council Response to the ICANN Board
- From: "Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2016 19:41:08 -0600
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isoc-cr-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=LN5BYbLbmNnF4diPl4rlD4CxdNcoY/pbtxGLW+PuC3s=; b=g6L9S3XLaXRuFH6EsyUbgL/SHtJLqhfPifg2VXVRvNsFO3wohpQdnr0qVuqDUvbDmB yot2znNPaJ2jC0dywVRyNinQDLEV278LO8n9+7HU9h1Yhjbx20KeK+8jLRyDScato/bw cXnbBCG52oVY7kUCkDW/UFTpi6wUvpLCTRzN6siM6gfAGVAQdG4OonAthmtBvXRsgR+M /UkZcvYUW3bHzD2+VkYketyskwn4Ul91b4igHEdYx+k+u0IWm5dqFjpmcxCYC8jSWnAW WFrWz/+TaU49vx2LGSbu4OwEm/AS5tUCH+3kSN8OcaSKvn64rYEPWOoyQlwa9FUqFxo1 U+EQ==
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <5E47E4DC-032B-4C71-8756-D7751C8B28D7@icann.org>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear Glen,
Dear Councillors
I submit this motion to approve during our next call on 13 Oct a
response to Chairman Crocker´s letter from August 5th 2016, and ask for
secondment:
<Text>
Motion on the GNSO Council Response to the ICANN Board Letter on New
gTLD Subsequent Procedures
Made by: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
Seconded by:
WHEREAS,
On 5 August 2016, the GNSO Council received a letter from Dr. Stephen
Crocker seeking an understanding of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group’s (WG) requirements and
timing related to advancing a new application process.
On 16 August 2016, the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the letter
and informed the ICANN Board that initial discussions within the GNSO
Council and more broadly, within the GNSO community and New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, were anticipated.
On 12 September 2016, the GNSO Council sent a letter to all of the
GNSO’s Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, and the New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures PDP WG seeking input to help formulate the Council’s
response to the ICANN Board.
The GNSO Council received an important number of responses and divergent
positions from many different individuals as well a constituencies
within the GNSO community, as well as from the New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures PDP WG.
RESOLVED,
The GNSO Council has synthesized the positions received and prepared a
response to the ICANN Board.
The GNSO Council looks forward to ongoing discussions with the broader
community, particularly at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, India.
The GNSO Council expects to continue to consult with the New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures PDP WG to determine if there are any significant
changes to its schedule or scope of work as defined in its charter.
<text end>
Respectfully
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
Forwarded message:
From: Steve Chan <steve.chan@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Drazek, Keith
<kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Stefania.Milan@xxxxxx <Stefania.Milan@xxxxxx>, Emily Barabas
<emily.barabas@xxxxxxxxx>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>,
Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - GNSO Council Response to
the ICANN Board
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 22:34:18 +0000
All,
Carlos, thank you for your comments. Seeing no volunteers to hold the
pen, staff is happy to prepare an initial draft for your
consideration, especially given the contracted timelines until the
next Council meeting.
With a vote expected to consider and approve this letter at the 13
October 2016 GNSO Council meeting, staff has prepared a draft motion,
also for your consideration. Unfortunately, the document and motion
deadline is today – any volunteers to put forth this motion (with
any necessary edits of course)?
We will try to provide the draft letter as soon as possible, as
ideally, it should be available with the motion,
Best,
Steve
From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 3:00 PM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Drazek, Keith"
<kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Stefania.Milan@xxxxxx" <Stefania.Milan@xxxxxx>, Emily Barabas
<emily.barabas@xxxxxxxxx>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>,
Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - GNSO Council Response to
the ICANN Board
Thank you vey much Steve for the excellent overview of the comments to
Chairman´s Crocker letter to date. From my personal point of view, I
belong to the group of the subsequent procedures PDP, that wonders
what the (short term vs. long term) context of the question is. And
just because of that, I´m a strong supporter of a very conservative
stance.
My initial suggestion for a clear formulation of a response at the
Council level, is to structure around the main (contentious)
issues/areas, including its pro and con arguments, instead of listing
the source of all the different positions. From that perspective I see
4 main areas/chapters for a structure of the response:
1. All the pending studies and PDPs that are analyzing the impact or
the 2012 round and will produce related recommendations: RPM,
Subsequent procedures and CCT-RT. (In general it worked well, but it
needs more refinement)
2. The question if the 2007 ¨policy¨ is strong enough for subsequent
procedures without any mayor changes.
2.a including the policy equal treatment of all applications (without
any categorization), as compared to restrictions over certain groups
of possible new TLDs (Geographic names, Communities, etc.)
3. if the AGB is strong enough as a ¨predictable application
process¨ for subsequent procedures, and if not, which type of
revisions it needs
3.a including the question of global fairness (or underserved areas)
4. if the ¨implementation/delegation¨ of new gTLDs of the last round
was good enough, or there are few lessons that should be carefully
analyzed and improvements introduced before new delegations
After reading the summary document I see how a general consensus gets
more and more difficult, as we go down the list here proposed. Then it
should be pretty obvious that the Boards main question should be
answered with a pretty clear ¨NO shortcuts¨.
But I also want to hear what the other members of the team think.
Carlos Raúl
El 30 sept 2016, a las 16:20, Steve Chan <steve.chan@xxxxxxxxx>
escribió:
<Input - ICANN Board Letter on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - 27
Sept 2016.docx>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|