[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Resolving Objection Proceedings with Mandatory PICs

[Jim Prendergast]

I don’t want to speak for Anne but I’d say its more that a “might happen.”  But don’t take my word – I’m just going by what Jeff said during one of our sessions in Marrakech.

“I think we’re all resolved now that there likely will be a public comment period, though we haven’t decided one way or the other officially.”

I haven’t seen anything since then that would move us away from that presumption.  Lots of good, new ideas came in via the comment process that should get feedback from the larger community.  The Neustar Proposal, Vickery Auctions, possible solutions to Closed Generics, etc.

Jim Prendergast
The Galway Strategy Group
+1 202 285 3699
@jimpren



From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 5:25 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Resolving Objection Proceedings with Mandatory PICs




Em 27 de set de 2019, à(s) 16:57:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>> escreveu:

Thanks Jeff. I think it’s going to be important to call for the Minority Statements when Leadership determines what high level agreement exists in cases where we do not have full consensus.

However, something else very important to this process that you have not mentioned below is the fact that there are certain issues that will call for additional public comment.  Hopefully we can discuss in Montreal which issues these are and get a WG consensus on further public comment that is needed.

Anne,

An additional public comment is not a given yet. It might happen, it might not happen, AFAIK.



Rubens


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190930/aabfd37b/attachment.html>