Re: [council] GNSO Council Response to the ICANN Board
Dear Councilors,
Staff worked with Council leadership to make a relatively small revision, which
seeks to draw attention to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG’s request
for additional context under which the questions in the Board’s letter were
asked. This new text can be found in the third paragraph of the letter. Last
call for any comments – the letter will be sent to the Board on Tuesday, 25
October, at the start of the day in Los Angeles.
Best,
Steve
On 10/18/16, 4:44 PM, "owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of James M.
Bladel" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks, Steve.
Councilors: Please submit comments/edits by the extended deadline, and
Heather, Donna & I will work with Staff to transmit this letter to the Board.
Thank you,
J.
On 10/18/16, 17:33 , "Steve Chan" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf
of steve.chan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Councilors,
We are nearing the suggested deadline for feedback on the draft GNSO
Council response to the ICANN Board and no additional input has yet been
received. I would like to suggest that an additional 12 hours be provided for
input (1159 UTC on Wednesday, 19 October) after which, if none is received,
staff will work with Council leadership to have the letter sent as currently
drafted.
The draft letter is attached for your convenience.
Best,
Steve
On 10/13/16, 12:59 PM, "Steve Chan" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on
behalf of steve.chan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Councilors,
Pursuant to the GNSO Council call on 13 October, staff is
circulating the latest draft of the Council response to the ICANN Board
regarding the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures timeline and work plan. I do not
recall a deadline being specified, but staff would like to suggest that all
comments be received by 23:59 UTC on Tuesday, 18 October, in order to allow for
any edits to be made or voting to take place if that becomes necessary - the
intent is to ensure timely transmission of the letter to the ICANN Board prior
to ICANN57.
Best,
Steve
On 10/10/16, 6:56 PM, "Steve Chan" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on
behalf of steve.chan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Councilors,
In support of the Motion put forth by Carlos below, please find
the draft GNSO Council response to the ICANN Board as prepared by Carlos, Phil,
James, Keith, and Stefania. The letter is intended to synthesize the responses
received from the community while also noting where common views were
identified. This drafting group and staff welcome your comments and suggested
edits.
Best,
Steve
On 10/3/16, 6:41 PM, "owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of
crg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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>
Attachment:
GNSO Council Response_Work Plan and Timeline for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG_With Comments_21Oct2016.docx Attachment:
GNSO Council Response_Work Plan and Timeline for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG_With Comments_21Oct2016.pdf Attachment:
smime.p7s
|