<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body dir="auto">
<div>Apologies but I have a conflict and most likely won't be able to join today's WP-1 call. <br>
<br>
</div>
<div><br>
On Oct 9, 2015, at 11:24 AM, Steve DelBianco <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Members of WP1:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Attached is an update (v4) of the analysis of public comments on bringing the Affirmation of Commitments into the ICANN bylaws. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The update reflects discussion on both our calls this week. This includes corrections noted on the last call, plus Kavouss’ request to replace personal pronouns, and highlighting the proposed response options for analyzing public comments.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We hope to discuss on today’s WP1 call at 17:30 UTC. We would begin on page 5, item 1: requiring implementation of review recommendations before opening next round of gTLDs. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Rinalia sent us 2 emails on behalf of the board. These are shown below, and I included her option in the attached doc. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>—Steve</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div id="MAC_OUTLOOK_SIGNATURE"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:12pt; 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>Rinalia Abdul Rahim<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 9:26 PM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: Updated analysis of public comments on bringing AoC into the bylaws<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Dear WP1, <br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><u>One addition to my earlier message regarding the CCT Review</u><br>
<br>
It would be helpful for the Board in making its decision on review recommendations if the CCT Review Team were to classify its recommendations along the following categories:<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>o Accept and implement BEFORE the next round of new gTLDs<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>o Accept and implement in tandem with the next round of new gTLDs<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The review team is free to suggest which of their recommendations fit into each group. The Board will make its decision based on input from the RT as well as input from the community and staff.
<br>
<br>
As a matter of procedure, the Board would ask the Review Team at the initiation of the CCT review to prepare to advise on the status of each of its recommendation (i.e., whether they think it is necessary to implement the recommendation before proceeding with
the next round of new gTLDs or in tandem). This will provide clarity on what set of recommendations must be implemented before the next rounds and what set of recommendations has more flexibility in terms of implementation timeline.
<br>
<br>
The suggestion to WP1 and CCWG is that any requirement to implement CCT review recommendations before the next round of new gTLDs distinguish between the two categories of recommendations in terms of implementation timeline.
<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:30 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com" target="_blank">rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial" lang="EN-US">Dear Steve and WP1 colleagues,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial" lang="EN-US"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">I note the concern regarding the Board’s position on the CCT review (as expressed in the Board comments on the CCWG’s
2</span><sup style="font-family: Arial;">nd</sup><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"> Draft Proposal).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial" lang="EN-US"> </span><u><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial" lang="EN-US">Please allow me to share some assurances from the Board:</span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial" lang="EN-US"> </span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">-<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
</span></span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">The Board will complete the CCT review along with several other reviews related to the new gTLD program before we decide whether and how to move forward with the next round. (Note: There are
a total of nine reviews.)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><span>-<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">The Board will take into account the recommendations from all of these reviews.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><span>-<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Depending on what the recommendations actually are, the Board will decide which of the CCT review recommendations must be implemented before moving forward with the next round. It may be appropriate
to implement some of the recommendations in tandem with moving forward.<span> </span>
It all depends on what recommendations emerge from the reviews.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial" lang="EN-US">The details and basis of the position:</span></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt" lang="EN-US"><span>(1)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial" lang="EN-US">The Board is committed to the implementation of all the AOC reviews (including the CCT Review) in a timely manner.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt" lang="EN-US"><span>(2)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial" lang="EN-US">For any future round of new gTLDs, it is important for the ICANN community to agree when ICANN is ready to move forward. The outcomes of the CCT review are expected to be key
inputs into the discussion. The outcomes of the CCT review alone, however, should not be the sole determinant for moving into the next round.<span>
</span>The GNSO’s policy development work on the expansion of the gTLD namespace is a key consideration in addition to other reviews.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt" lang="EN-US"><span>(3)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial" lang="EN-US">There are 9 reviews related to the new gTLD Program scheduled for implementation between Q3 2014 and Q2 2017 – one of these reviews is the CCT Review.<span>
</span>The Board would not consider initiating the next round of new gTLDs without completing all the reviews to learn what improvements are necessary for the next round.<span>
</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt" lang="EN-US"><span>(4)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial" lang="EN-US">The scope of the CCT review is not limited to the expansion of the gTLD namespace.<span>
</span>It may result in complex recommendations that require a longer period of time for implementation.<span>
</span>Placing a specific requirement in the Bylaws to restrain ICANN from moving forward with future rounds of new gTLDs until all CCT review recommendations are implemented does not assure alignment with ICANN’s core value of promoting competition in the
registration of domain names.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt" lang="EN-US"><span>(5)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial" lang="EN-US">At its recent meeting in Los Angeles, the Board approved the following resolutions that affirm what is indicated above:<span> </span></span></p>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;">
<p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(51,51,51);background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%">Whereas, Board resolution </span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(102,102,102)"><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2012-02-07-en#4" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(0,152,213);text-decoration:none">2012.02.07.05</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(51,51,51);background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"> reaffirmed </span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(102,102,102)">ICANN</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(51,51,51);background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%">'s
commitment to opening an additional round of the New </span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(102,102,102)">gTLD</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(51,51,51);background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"> Program
as expeditiously as possible.<span> </span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Whereas, the reviews of the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program are currently underway.<span> </span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Whereas, the Board encourages stakeholder participation in the bottom-up process to review and develop future rounds of the New gTLD Program.<span> </span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Resolved (2015.09.28.12), the Board directs ICANN staff to continue with the reviews of the New gTLD Program as scheduled, and encourages the stakeholder community to participate and support
a robust and meaningful review process.<span> </span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Resolved (2015.09.28.13), the Board will follow the community work with interest and will consider guidance on future rounds once the review process and potential GNSO policy development
process reach a more advanced stage.</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial" lang="EN-US"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><AoC - analysis of PC2 v4.docx></div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>