[GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Subsequent Procedures: Request for reactions to letter by GAC Chair to SubPro PDP WG Co-Chairs relaying GAC input on the scope of upcoming SubPro public comment

Justine Chew justine.chew at gmail.com
Thu Nov 28 06:56:06 UTC 2019

Dear all,

RE:*Letter from the GAC Chair, Manal Ismail, on behalf of GAC Membership:
GAC Input on Scope of Upcoming New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures PDP WG
Public Comment

I had tabled for discussion at yesterday's (27 Nov) CPWG call the
above-referenced correspondence from the GAC Chair to the Subsequent
Procedures PDP WG Co-Chairs which relayed GAC's input on the scope of the
upcoming (additional) call for public comments to recommendations (whether
preliminary or not) of the SubPro PDP WG. However, as I was otherwise
detained, I was unable to make the said CPWG call and am now taking a
remedial step to initiate the intended discussion.


SubPro PDP WG is close to completing its review of public comments to its
Initial Report of 2018, although some work is ongoing in respect of certain
topics which have raised new ideas and are likely to lead to significant
changes for subsequent procedures (IMO).

Among others, one key question that *SubPro PDP WG is determining is, in
basic terms, whether [A] to confine the additional call for public comments
to preliminary recommendations (or questions) relating to those topics
which SubPro PDP WG Leadership opines were not put out for Community input
in earlier calls for public comments.* This decision is still pending and
debate among members of the SubPro PDP WG on this matter is ongoing, *with
an alternative being proposed, which is [B] to put, again in basic terms, a
version of a "draft Final Report" with recommendations in its entirety, out
for public comment*. In that scenario the document would not be "final" in
form, of course.

If I may abbreviate hereon, the rationale for [A] limiting the scope of
what would be put out for public comment centres around the elements of (1)
duplicity - we have already asked for community input on much of the WG's
earlier work; (2) public comment fatigue; and (3) pressure to complete the
WG's work within an already elongated timeline.

While the arguments put forth for [B] putting a report in its entirety out
for comment revolve around (1) keeping open opportunity for broad-based
indirect participation by the Community; (2) enabling the Community to
better understand and appreciate crucial connections between topics which
would otherwise be effectively severed, ie. "allow Community to see the
whole picture because changes to one part of the picture might affect
perspectives to other parts of the picture"; (3) this is needed precursor
work to better facilitate the goal of Community-wide accepted Final Report

*Request for Reactions*

The afore-linked letter from the GAC Chair sets out the GAC's reaction to
this question.

I invite feedback, *especially from At-Large colleagues active on the
SubPro PDP WG*, on whether At-Large/ALAC should also react to this
question, and if yes, how so.

Discussion on this list can be expected to be taken up at a subsequent CPWG

Thank you,

*Justine Chew*
At-Large/ALAC liaison for Subsequent Procedures
ALAC Member

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/attachments/20191128/d6317607/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org

By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

More information about the GTLD-WG mailing list