[Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant

[Steve Chan]

All,

I have made the following updates to the draft charter:
* Incorporated the suggestion from Donna Austin from 27 May
* Made the change suggested by Philip Sheppard and the BRG, although I made
it far more general because as Philip noted, the set of circumstances
described would not be limited to just .brands.
* Regarding the comments from Thomas Lowenhaupt, I did not make a change in
the charter, but instead made a change in the matrix, where I included a
link to Thomas¹ Wiki post about Informed Consent, so that it can be
considered in full by a possible WG.
The latest versions are attached and also available on the Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables. If there are
any disagreements with how the items have been captured, do of course let me
know and I¹ll be happy to update.

When we reach the finish line, I¹ll once again integrate the DG's three
documents into a single, clean document.

Best,
Steve


From:  "philip at brandregistrygroup.org" <philip at brandregistrygroup.org>
Date:  Monday, June 1, 2015 at 3:46 AM
To:  "gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org>
Subject:  [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by
previous applicant

Steve, Jeff, Bret,

a BRG member has made this suggestion which I think could be wider than just
.brands. Could you agree to add it to the Charter maybe in Section II, Group
1, around the bullet "Different TLD Types? Feel free to turn the text into
the style of the Charter.


Philip Sheppard
Director General
Brand Registry Group
www.brandregistrygroup.org <http://www.brandregistrygroup.org>
 
----------------------------

Application by a previous applicant
In case a (.brand) RO (from the first round) applies for another (.brand)
gTLD in the subsequent application window, certain requirements of the
application could be shortened, reduced of even omitted (e.g., financial,
technical, administrative, etc.) in case such RO is duly fulfilling its
current RA and running its (.brand) gTLD. It seems some time could be saved
during the application process if ICANN validates most of the the RO
information.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/attachments/20150601/976f3f6d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: New gTLD Principles_Recs_IG_Issues_1June2015.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 38241 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/attachments/20150601/976f3f6d/NewgTLDPrinciples_Recs_IG_Issues_1June2015-0001.xlsx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Charter_New gTLD DG_v0.1_1Jun2015.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 120320 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/attachments/20150601/976f3f6d/Charter_NewgTLDDG_v0.1_1Jun2015-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4534 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/attachments/20150601/976f3f6d/smime-0001.p7s>