[council] FW: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top-Level

[Phil Corwin]

I concur that it would not be appropriate, and that the interpretation of the quoted language is not entirely clear absent further exploration.


Philip S. Corwin

Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/Cell


Twitter: @VLawDC


"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey




________________________________
From: council-bounces at gnso.icann.org <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 2:16 PM
To: Stephanie Perrin; council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] FW: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top-Level


Are we supposed to interpret this to mean that WT5’s recommendations are not subject to the consensus of the entire PDP WG?  I can understand if they want WT5 to operate “similarly to a cross community working group” as it investigates issues and drafts recommendations.  But it is not appropriate for that to happen within the PDP without the consensus process of the PDP.



Darcy



From: <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Date: Friday, August 4, 2017 at 10:39 AM
To: <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] FW: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top-Level



I agree that this is a worry.  And at the risk of sounding pedantic, we don't need to start with "as such".

Stephanie Perrin



On 2017-08-03 08:27, Phil Corwin wrote:

In regard to this:

"As such, we are strongly recommending that the leaders of WT5 operate WT5 similarly to a cross community working group, ensuring that each SO and AC participate equally to achieve consensus on any recommendations proposed by the Work Track."



While recognizing that the structure proposed by the co-chairs will have the final decisions on Geo name recommendations made by the full PDP WG, and fully understanding the internal ICANN political dynamics surrounding this issue, I nonetheless believe we should have some internal discussion within Council, with appropriate staff input, on whether this proposed CCWG within  a PDP structure is consistent with applicable GNSO rules regarding the operation of PDP WGs. I think we all need to be clear about whether or not a precedent is being set that dilutes GNSO primacy on gTLD policy matters.



Thanks for your consideration of this comment.



Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/Cell



Twitter: @VLawDC



"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey



Sent from my iPad



On Aug 2, 2017, at 11:56 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:



As such, we are strongly recommending that the leaders of WT5 operate WT5 similarly to a cross community working group, ensuring that each SO and AC participate equally to achieve consensus on any recommendations proposed by the Work Track.

_______________________________________________

council mailing list

council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

_______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20170804/b1a7b5e5/attachment.html>