<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [council] Formal Petition and Charter of Proposed IDNgTLD Constituency</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Garamond"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'>Dear Avri;<BR>
<BR>
Under the process we are currently following, the Staff endeavors to post formal submissions by proponents of any new GNSO constituencies as expeditiously as possible for a 30-day public/community comment forum. That would apply to the City TLD group or any other applicant. Under normal circumstances, a new petition would then be submitted to the Board at its next meeting after completion of the public comment period; but the exact date any item appears on the Board's meeting agenda is a Board matter that is not under Staff's control.</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> <BR>
<BR>
I h</FONT><FONT FACE="Garamond">ope that’s helpful feedback.<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE="Garamond">Best,<BR>
<BR>
Rob Hoggarth<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 4/21/09 4:24 PM, "Avri Doria" <<a href="avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'><FONT FACE="Garamond">Hi,<BR>
<BR>
So can I take that to mean that if the City TLD group finished their <BR>
formal statement shortly after the deadline, too late for a 30 day <BR>
review before the next board meeting, you would be able initiate <BR>
another 30 day review shortly after they submitted the formal <BR>
petition and their application would then be on a Board agenda some <BR>
reasonable time after the end of that comment period? And this would <BR>
also apply to any other hitherto unknown application?<BR>
<BR>
thanks<BR>
a.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 21 Apr 2009, at 18:09, Robert Hoggarth wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> Dear Avri:<BR>
><BR>
> Your general assumption about timing is correct. Your questions <BR>
> otherwise assume a level of planning and control that does not <BR>
> exist. Staff has been handling the various new constituencies as <BR>
> they have come along (i.e., a rolling basis). So far there have been <BR>
> four serious expression of interest. While three proponents have <BR>
> worked to get before the Board as soon as possible, the other has <BR>
> taken a less expedited approach to the process.<BR>
><BR>
> I think the timing and pace of the more recent proponents (IDNgTLDs <BR>
> and Consumers) has been faster because they have had previous <BR>
> examples to build on (CyberSafety). The City TLD group is the only <BR>
> one that has yet to submit its formal petition and charter.<BR>
><BR>
> Staff is currently unaware of any other serious proponents who are <BR>
> considering stepping forward.<BR>
><BR>
> Best,<BR>
><BR>
> Rob Hoggarth<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> On 4/21/09 2:02 PM, "Avri Doria" <<a href="avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:<BR>
><BR>
> Hi,<BR>
><BR>
> thanks for the update.<BR>
><BR>
> So this means we have 3 candidates for constituency in this pass (I<BR>
> really have a lot of trouble navigating the current web site - iu am<BR>
> sure it just me because it is improved, but i used ot know how to find<BR>
> things.)? I am assuming that the review period ends in time for these<BR>
> to be acted on by the board before the June meeting and before any new<BR>
> stakeholder groups would actually take their seats.<BR>
><BR>
> BTW, will other new constituencies be considered on a rolling basis, <BR>
> or<BR>
> is staff planning to batch them. And if the policy staff has <BR>
> decided to<BR>
> batch them, what is the time interval for the next batch?<BR>
><BR>
> thanks<BR>
><BR>
> a.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 13:52 -0700, Robert Hoggarth wrote:<BR>
> > Dear Kristina, Avri and other GNSO Council members:<BR>
> ><BR>
> > The IDNgTLD proponents have modified their petition and charter to<BR>
> > correct the “typos” Kristina identified. The revised document is<BR>
> > attached as an FYI.<BR>
> ><BR>
> > The Public Comment Forum is likely to be opened later today.<BR>
> ><BR>
> > Best regards,<BR>
> ><BR>
> > Rob Hoggarth<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>