[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 28 March 2016

[Rubens Kuhl]

> Em 29 de mar de 2016, à(s) 05:14:000, Kavouss Arasteh via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> escreveu:
> 
> Dear Co-Chairs
> Please kindly be informed that the outcome of this WG shall in no way decrease  or degrade the   Role if GAC in the new round if gTLD . In other words GAC preserves and maintains its rights as previously contained in AGB.
> GAC expect from this process improvements and NOT losing any right it already practiced.
> I am aware of the good? Relation between GNSO and GAC which was highly demonstrated in CCWG by GNSO people which resulted GAC losing some if its current power( read testimony of 
>  Some GBSO colleagues before the House sub- committee.
> I hope we will not end up further division and polarisation and even discrimination  in treating SO/AC .Stress Test 18 and Carve-Out  gave already negatively and adversely affected GAC.
> GNSO needs to take a more positive and  faire  attitude vis a vis GAC.
> Regrads
> Kavouss
>    

Kavouss, 

On a general note that might considered by Work Track 3, GAC might want to look at whether some mechanisms didn't achieve process efficiency and thus would be better if scraped. For instance, GAC Early Warning was not that much useful for both governments and applicants, since very little application changes/withdrawals came out of it, and governments could still raise either GAC (consensus) advice or individual concerns. GAC EW was also of little use to applicants as well, since most discussions took longer than the deadline for 80% refund. 

The point here is not whether to make the change I mentioned, which would be a premature discussion, but for GAC to be open to changes where no impact or a better outcome is achieved even though something with the label "GAC" is removed. 


Rubens