<html>
<body>
The CCT-RT report goes to the Board for approval and implementation. That
is in the Bylaws. <br><br>
But we know that the Board does not have the power to direct the GNSO to
include a specific recommendation in a PDP.<br><br>
But the Board does have the ability to reject PDP recommendations and it
could in theory do tat if our recommendations are not in line with the
CCT-RT Recommendations.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 24/04/2017 12:42 PM, Jon Nevett wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Thanks Anne. My point
isn't that the CCT shouldn't affect the policy-making process. It
should. My point is that we shouldn't leave the impression with
them or anyone else that the CCT is able to dictate the policy-making
process.<br><br>
Best,<br><br>
Jon<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Apr 24, 2017, at 12:27 PM,
Aikman-Scalese, Anne
<<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com">AAikman@lrrc.com</a>>
wrote:<br><br>
Jon,<br>
I would have to pose a question about the purpose of the Reviews.
What is the purpose of a Review if it is not meant to affect the
policy-making process? Wouldn’t it just be so much noise – in one
ear and out the other of the GNSO? Admittedly input is just input
but isn’t this an essential element of the Multi-Stakeholder
model?<br>
Anne<br>
<br>
<b>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese<br>
</b>Of Counsel<br>
520.629.4428 office<br>
520.879.4725 fax<br>
<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com">AAikman@lrrc.com</a><br>
_____________________________<br>
<image003.png><br>
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP<br>
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700<br>
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611<br>
<a href="http://lrrc.com/">lrrc.com</a><br>
<br>
<b>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">
mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]<b>On Behalf Of </b>Jon
Nevett<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 24, 2017 6:33 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Emily Barabas<br>
<b>Cc:</b>
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>
<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Please Review by 24 April: SubPro
Comments - CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations<br>
<br>
I think that we give way too much deference to the CCT-RT report in the
quote from the draft letter below. While we absolutely should take
the appointed review group's input into our deliberations, does it really
matter if the review group expects us to strictly interpret and implement
its recommendations, for example? It is the GNSO that is tasked
with recommending policy to the Board under ICANN's Bylaws. I don't
think that we should be asking another group whether it thinks we have
latitude to suggest alternative solutions that meet or do not meet the
spirit of its recommendations. JN <br>
<br>
"It would be helpful for the CCT-RT to clarify how strictly it
expects the PDP WG to interpret and adhere to the language of the
recommendations. To what extent is it appropriate for the Working Group
to recommend alternative mechanisms or policies that meet the spirit of
the CCT-RT recommendations? Alternately, does the CCT-RT view the
obligation as more limited -- that the PDP must consider the
recommendation but may end up with an outcome that is inconsistent or
conflicting with CCT-RT recommendations?<br><br>
If the CCT-RT expects the Working Group to strictly interpret and
implement the language of the recommendations, it would be helpful to
have clear definitions for terminology used in the document."<br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>On Apr 21, 2017, at 7:39 AM, Emily Barabas
<<a href="mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org">emily.barabas@icann.org</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Dear all,<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Gentle reminder – <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Please review and provide feedback on the SubPro draft comments for
the CCT-RT Report prior to the full Working Group meeting on Monday 24
April at 20:00 UTC</b>. The draft comments are available
here:<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LC-1-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ7z58/edit?usp=sharing">
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LC-1-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ7z58/edit?usp=sharing</a>
.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Kind regards,<br>
<dd>Emily<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>From: </b>Emily Barabas
<<a href="mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org">emily.barabas@icann.org</a>
><br>
<dd>Date: </b>Tuesday 18 April 2017 at 21:54<br>
<dd>To:
</b>"<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<dd>Subject: </b>Please Review by 24 April: SubPro Comments - CCT-RT
Draft Report and Recommendations<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Dear all,<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG leadership team has
prepared draft comments in response to the CCT-RT Draft Report and
Recommendations:
<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LC-1-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ7z58/edit?usp=sharing">
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LC-1-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ7z58/edit?usp=sharing</a>
. The draft text draws from WG discussion with representatives of the
CCT-RT on our 10 April Working Group call.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Please provide feedback and suggested edits prior to the full Working
Group meeting on Monday 24 April at 20:00 UTC. </b>For those who do not
use Google Docs, a Microsoft Word version is attached to this email.<br>
<dd> <br>
</b>
<dd>The WG will consider proposed revisions during the 24 April call,
after which the leadership team will finalize and submit the text. The
deadline for public comments on the CCT-RT Draft Report is 27 April
2017.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Please note that the purpose of this comment is to pose clarifying
questions and make suggestions about the language of the Draft
Recommendations to help the CCT-RT refine the text for the Final Report.
The goal is not to provide substantive responses to the Recommendations,
as the text of the Report is not yet final.<br>
</b>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Please let the leadership team know if you have any questions.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Kind regards,<br>
<dd>Emily<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Emily Barabas </b>| Policy Specialist<br>
<dd>ICANN</b> | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers<br>
<dd>Email:
<a href="mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org">emily.barabas@icann.org</a> |
Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a><br><br>
</dl> <br><br>
<hr>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=1 color="#808080"><br>
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the
intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information
transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is
intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended
recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.</font></blockquote><br>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit<br>
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"<br>
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
name="signature.asc"<br>
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail<br>
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:60c2b3LL6FcywLOkURxLaV1U0J8dmt8FL+HbbsAAJyUbTClJ5LrfoGQs0Y/Fh2QvLNW1c1vADrsXQpgWa5r7Rw0e7DVBJ6f5gz7gj7cw+lyr1tUr67z1WpsouyTU3+Oxh4MrFxgdHRLjYpCn8X5mfQ==<br>
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000033)(400125000037)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001033)(400125100037)(400001002033)(400125200037);<br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit<br>
Content-Disposition: inline<br>
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:60c2b3LL6FcywLOkURxLaV1U0J8dmt8FL+HbbsAAJyUbTClJ5LrfoGQs0Y/Fh2QvLNW1c1vADrsXQpgWa5r7Rw0e7DVBJ6f5gz7gj7cw+lyr1tUr67z1WpsouyTU3+Oxh4MrFxgdHRLjYpCn8X5mfQ==<br>
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000033)(400125000037)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001033)(400125100037)(400001002033)(400125200037);<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a></blockquote>
</body>
</html>