[council] - Preliminary Issue Report - New gTLD Subsequent Procedure

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Tue Aug 25 21:35:55 UTC 2015


Since it is a  preliminary issues report, our deliberations and comments
might indeed be of consequence in the creation of the final issues
report.  But does it matter when, or how often, we discuss it? As long
as it is before the close of the comment period, that is. Might be
reasonable to discuss this in Dublin, though, before the comment period

I am still of the belief that the period around a meeting is not good
for terminating a comment period. We all know that the week before, the
week of the meeting, and the week after the meeting are really not
available for review and comment - a face to face meeting should be a 3
week dead zone that is recognized by lengthening a comment period. It
used to be, when did we lose the habit of a moratorium on comment
deadlines around the meetings?  On as sensitive an issue as a possible
next gTLD round, a longer comment period that respects the time spent at
the Dublin meeting seems to me to be  the right thing to do.  While I
have not received direct guidance from the NCSG on this issue, I do know
there are only so many documents we can comment on at a time and that
the period immediately before and after a meeting is a hard time to
generate comments.

I don't really understand the significance of the issue of the date on
which the preliminary issues report is released - that should be based
on when the staff is ready to do so and seems independent of how we
schedule a comment period around the Dublin meeting. But I guess if we
need a council meeting to make a decision on the longer comment period
that takes the Dublin meeting into account, I would support waiting
until we have had a chance to discuss it.


On 25-Aug-15 13:01, Volker Greimann wrote:
> Hi Phil,
> Unless I am mistaken, the publication of an issues report that has
> already been requested by the Council by ICANN staff is not subject to
> a deliberation or decision by the Council. While we may deliberate,
> this would not impact the issues report, therefore it is of no
> consequence. Only after public comments have been submitted and
> reviewed the Council has a role to play again in deciding whether to
> initiate a PDP. If the report is ready, it should be published for
> public comment.
> We can therefore use the allotted time to discuss the published issues
> report during our meeting but I see no reason whatsoever for delaying
> the report for our benefit as our deliberations will not impact this
> in any way forseen by the bylaws.
> What we can then debate at our meeting is whether an extention of the
> standard 40 day public comment period is warranted or even required
> and I am open for debate on that.
> With respect to your question, a month is not in itself problematic,
> but a month here and a month there quickly adds up to another year or
> two. So I am very much in favor of streamlining the formal process in
> favor of having a good PDP effort that may as well take more time than
> currently expected.
> TL;DR: The report should be published; our discussion item will not be
> affected either way due to our defined role in the PDP process not
> being affected by publication.
> Best regards,
> Volker
> Am 25.08.2015 um 18:42 schrieb Phil Corwin:
>> Respectfully disagreeing, it is the position of the BC that the
>> comment period should be initiated immediately following the Council
>> call of September 3^rd , and that the comment period should be for 60
>> days.
>> Publication on August 31st will render  null and void this item on
>> the proposed Council agenda for September 3:
>>                 *_Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION & DECISION – Public
>> Comment Period for New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures Preliminary Issue
>> Report (15 minutes)_*
>>                 At its July 2015 meeting, the GNSO Council approved
>> the staff request
>> <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17350.html>
>> for an extension of the deadline for publication of the Preliminary
>> Issue Report on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures. The extension was
>> viewed as necessary given the number of potential topics that had
>> been identified by the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures Discussion
>> Group and the need to develop a proposed framework for handling those
>> topics in a possible PDP. The Council had also discussed briefly the
>> possible benefits of having an extended public comment period in view
>> of the community interest in this matter. Here the Council will
>> discuss the ramifications of extending the public comment period and
>> decide whether or not to recommend moving forward with the idea.
>> 4.1 – Update and presentation of possible timelines (Steve Chan)
>> 4.2 – Council discussion
>> 4.3 – Council decision and next steps
>> Publishing for only 40 days will close out the comment period prior
>> to the Dublin ICANN meeting, at which the community can be more fully
>> informed about the Preliminary Issue Report.
>> Really, with the second round at least several years off, what is the
>> rush when all we are talking about is a one month delay of Council
>> consideration of the Final Report, when that approval can still be
>> accomplished this calendar year?
>> Thank you for your consideration.
>> Best to all, Philip

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

More information about the council mailing list