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

[Aikman-Scalese, Anne]

Yes – agree with Jim on this and hopefully Leadership is budgeting time in one of our sessions to review a list of issues that should be considered for public comment.  I would add the new Predictability Framework language to this list.   I would also add the question of resolving Objections via PICs and related enforcement issues that arise  - cause I really cannot see ICANN bearing the expense associated with PICs coming out of those solutions.

I think another topic which deserves a second pass in public comment is any WG tentative consensus on application “types”.   We have quite a long list now.
Anne

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Jim Prendergast
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 6:30 AM
To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Resolving Objection Proceedings with Mandatory PICs

[EXTERNAL]
________________________________
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<mailto: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<mailto: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



________________________________

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190930/4e775606/attachment-0001.html>