[Gnso-sc-budget] Fwd: [council] Proposed GNSO Council comment on the draft FY20 IANA/PTI Budget

Sun Nov 11 12:37:06 UTC 2018

Hi Ayden and All,

Perhaps the last sentence can be revised to “However, it is not anticipated that delegations would occur in FY20”?  I’ve attached the latest known joint timeline for the SubPro and RPM working groups.  While the timeline shows possible delivery of the full SubPro report to the GNSO Council around the beginning of Q3 2019, it will then have to be adopted by the Board (adding several months) and then passed over to GDD for implementation.  To my knowledge, IANA/PTI will not be involved in the “implementation” of the gTLD subsequent procedures.  As it pertains to the output of GNSO policy work, they are responsible for the delegation or retirement of gTLDs in or out of the root.  Therefore, I suggest the change of the word from implementation to delegation.

Thank you.

B

Berry Cobb

GNSO Policy Consultant

@berrycobb

From: Gnso-sc-budget [mailto:gnso-sc-budget-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2018 01:41
To: gnso-sc-budget at icann.org
Cc: PMcGrady at winston.com
Subject: [Gnso-sc-budget] Fwd: [council] Proposed GNSO Council comment on the draft FY20 IANA/PTI Budget

Dear all,

Please see below a message received on the GNSO Council mailing list regarding our proposed comment on the PTI/IANA budget.

This does seem a valid point to me; to resolve it, I will suggest revising this bullet point from:

The GNSO Council notes that its current priorities and policy development activities do not appear to intersect directly with the operations of the IANA Functions by PTI.

To:

The GNSO Council notes that one of our current policy development activities does potentially intersect with the operations of the IANA Functions by PTI. The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group is currently developing Policy that may ultimately instruct IANA to place new TLDs into the root. However, it is not anticipated that this implementation would occur in FY20.

Please can someone fact check the last sentence. I have spent over an hour trying to find a timeline for this working group on the ICANN website with no success. Going off of memory I think the timeline would be 2022, but I might be mistaken — if I am, please let me know!

If there are any concerns or suggested edits, please can you let me know today. The deadline for the Council to submit this statement to the Public Comment Forum is tomorrow, and I would like to get the revised language back to the Council ASAP for its review. Thanks.

Best wishes,

Ayden

Begin forwarded message:

From: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady at winston.com>

Subject: RE: [council] Proposed GNSO Council comment on the draft FY20 IANA/PTI Budget

Date: 9 November 2018 at 17:04:11 CET

To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>

Cc: "GNSO Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org>

Reply-To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady at winston.com>

Thanks Ayden. 

I have set this to the IPC for any comments.  However, can you please clarify what is meant by “The GNSO Council notes that its current priorities and policy development activities do not appear to intersect directly with the operations of the IANA Functions by PTI.”  Seems to me that the Subsequent Procedures PDP is working on Policy related to a process which ultimately instructs IANA to put new TLDs in the root, so I’m not sure that the statement is accurate.  Is there a way to clarify what was meant by this sentence?  Thanks!

Best,
Paul

From: council < <mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline
Sent: Friday, November 9, 2018 9:08 AM
To: Ayden Férdeline < <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com> icann at ferdeline.com>
Cc: GNSO Council List < <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org> council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed GNSO Council comment on the draft FY20 IANA/PTI Budget

Dear all,

Just a friendly reminder; the attached comment will be submitted on behalf of the GNSO Council this coming Monday, unless an objection is raised. (The only further edit that would be made would be to remove the 'draft' watermark from the document.) Thank you.

Kind regards,

Ayden Férdeline 

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 11:00, Ayden Férdeline < <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com> icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

Dear all,

On behalf of the Council's Standing Committee on Budget and Operations, please find attached a comment that we have prepared on the draft FY20 IANA/PTI budget.

We are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the Council on 12 November 2018, absent any objections from a member of the Council.

With apologies for not getting this into your inbox sooner, can you please review the attached document as a matter of urgency. Thank you very much.

Kind regards,

Ayden Férdeline

  _____  

The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-sc-budget/attachments/20181111/94aaa615/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SubPro_RPMs Joint Timeline_15Oct2018_Co-Chairs Review.pptx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation
Size: 1946370 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-sc-budget/attachments/20181111/94aaa615/SubPro_RPMsJointTimeline_15Oct2018_Co-ChairsReview-0001.pptx>