<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><div><div><div>All,</div></div></div><div><br></div><div>I have made the following updates to the draft charter:</div><ul><li>Incorporated the suggestion from Donna Austin from 27 May</li><li>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.</li><li>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 Thomas’ Wiki post about Informed Consent, so that it can be considered in full by a possible WG.</li></ul><div>The latest versions are attached and also available on the Wiki: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables">https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables</a>. If there are any disagreements with how the items have been captured, do of course let me know and I’ll be happy to update.</div><div><br></div><div>When we reach the finish line, I’ll once again integrate the DG's three documents into a single, clean document.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Steve</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> "<a href="mailto:philip@brandregistrygroup.org">philip@brandregistrygroup.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:philip@brandregistrygroup.org">philip@brandregistrygroup.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Monday, June 1, 2015 at 3:46 AM<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> "<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant<br></div><div><br></div><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000; font-size:10pt;"><div>Steve, Jeff, Bret,</div><div><br></div><div>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 "<i>Different TLD Types</i>? Feel free to turn the text into the style of the
Charter.<br></div><div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Philip Sheppard</div><div>Director General</div><div>Brand Registry Group</div><div><a href="http://www.brandregistrygroup.org">www.brandregistrygroup.org</a></div><div> </div>
----------------------------<br></div><div><br></div><div><b>Application by a previous applicant</b></div><div>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.</div></span></div></div></span></body></html>