[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] Sub-Pro WT3 Position on Limited Public Interest Objections

[Kiran Malancharuvil]

Hi Paul,

It seems like the very narrow scope of this email is "limited public interest objections", not the AGB as a whole, and Karen's email should be taken as referring to such.

Perhaps I'm wrong but your email seems slightly alarmist if that's the case.

Thanks,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil
Policy Counselor
MarkMonitor
415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

On Oct 27, 2016, at 8:55 AM, Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>> wrote:

Karen,

This is what I was worried about.  When you say the AGB remains "in good order, functioned as envisioned and within scope, and are sufficient for subsequent procedures" it gives the incorrect impression that we have gone through the Guidebook and all of it is "remain in good order, functioned as envisioned and within scope, and are sufficient for subsequent procedures."  This is not even vaguely the case.  As we discussed on a call, there was agreement that the current format of the AGB seems suited to its purpose, but we reached no conclusions on all of the content.  I think  this distinction is vital and I hope that the distinction appears in any summary of our work to date.  Thanks!

Best,
Paul



From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Karen Day
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 9:09 AM
To: 'gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 at icann.org>' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 at icann.org>>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] Sub-Pro WT3 Position on Limited Public Interest Objections
Importance: High

Dear WT3 members:

Based on our discussions and feedback thus far, I'd like to seek confirmation of my understanding that, we are approaching consensus that the existing policy and AGB (see attached for the specific language) remain in good order, functioned as envisioned and within scope, and are sufficient for subsequent procedures.

I do note that we do have concerns about the high cost of these objections, whether or not the Panel implemented the "quick look" procedure appropriately, and the role of the Independent Objector.  These items will be specifically covered later in our work flow and the outcomes applied accordingly.

Please let us know whether you are in agreement, you disagree (stating why) or whether you would prefer to reserve judgement until further work is done (stating what work you'd like to see).  Silence will be taken as agreement. :)

Thanks for your participation and I wish safe travels to those of you going to Hyderabad.

Best regards,
Karen
____________________________
Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP
Registry Operations Manager
Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ? Mobile: + 1 919-599-4356 ? karen.day at sas.com<mailto:karen.day at sas.com>
SAS Institute Inc.? SAS Campus Drive ? Cary, NC 27513 USA


_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3