[Gnso-newgtld-dg] Any Recent Activity

[Steve Chan]

Bret,

I wanted to address your question related to process.

The output from this group will not directly lead to the initiation of a
PDP. Instead, it may serve as the basis for the GNSO Council to request an
Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (as a reminder, here are is
the set of information that should ideally be provided as part of that
request: https://community.icann.org/x/GQllAg). The DG¹s work will likely
contribute heavily to staff drafting the Preliminary Issue Report. Contained
within the Preliminary Issue Report is also the charter, all of which will
be posted for public comment. Once the public comment period is completed,
staff will produce a Final Issue Report, taking into account comments
received. That Final Issue Report will be sent to the GNSO Council for
consideration for initiation of a PDP.

What and how the DG intends to produce its outputs is up to the group
itself, as there is not necessarily formal process around discussion groups.
So in regards to your question about whether public comment is necessary, it
is up to the group and from a staff perspective, we have no strong opinion
either way. The public comment period embedded in the generation of the
Issue Report is expected to assess whether information contained is accurate
and complete, not necessarily to change the overall scope. Also, that public
comment period will be focused on the Preliminary Issue Report and not
directly on the work of the DG.

Hope this helps.

Best,
Steve

From:  Bret Fausett <bret at uniregistry.link>
Date:  Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 3:48 AM
To:  "gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Any Recent Activity


>  No objections to the schedule, but it seems like we are losing a lot of time.
> If you need help with the work plan or any of the documents, let me know.  It
> seems like we have fallen off time targets and it would be great to be in a
> position to start a pdp on this soon.

I think the Los Angeles meeting took some wind out of our sails, as my sense
of the room was that we needed to wait for further inputs and work in
parallel to some external processes. We now have received the Staff report
but we still have other reviews of which we will need to take account in
preparing the Draft Charter and in the policy work that will take place
later. 

I don¹t know that starting the policy process earlier necessarily means that
subsequent rounds will start earlier, but I appreciate the need to move
forward, with due consideration of the big picture and the many reviews now
underway, and thank you for kick-starting this. Steve and I spoke in
Singapore about having bi-weekly calls from now to completion, so look for
an invite and schedule in the next few days. I¹d really like to get this to
the Names Council for approval before or at the Buenos Aires meeting, so
let¹s think about a work plan that will allow that to happen.

To your point at the Council meeting in Singapore, I¹d like to get some
staff input on the required public comment periods prior to launching a PDP.
We had talked about having a public comment period just for our draft
report, but if the same report, more or less, is going to pass through a
mandatory public comment period at some in the near term, I think we should
develop a work plan that uses the mandatory comment period and skips the
elective comment period. No point in have two comment period on essentially
the same piece of work. Perhaps Marika or Steve could update us on what is
required between now and launching the formal PDP.

          Bret

-- 
Bret Fausett, Esq.
General Counsel, Uniregistry, Corp.

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
mobile +1 310 985 1351
office +1 949 706 2300 x4201
UTC -8 hours  € http://uniregistry.link





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/attachments/20150218/fcec883c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4697 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/attachments/20150218/fcec883c/smime-0001.p7s>