[GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Request from RPM PDP co-chairs & GNSO Council leadership response

Thu Aug 22 14:41:26 UTC 2019

Phillip, I appreciate the documents may be divergent at times and I fully
understand as a result that there may or may not be consequences. What I am
trying to ascertain is - What is(are) the actual specific provision(s) that
will be determined differently under each baseline scenario that are
causing this matter to be raised now? Thanks, Paul

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 3:07 PM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com> wrote:

> Paul, the consequence of the disagreement is explained in this passage
> from the Co-Chair’s letter:
>
>
>
> “ *Standard for recommending changes – *The answer to this question is
> dependent on the answer to the first. Ms. Kleiman believes that if the WG
> reaches consensus agreement that any provision of the AGB differs
> materially from a related provision of the STI Report this should be
> regarded as an indication that implementation differs from policy and
> should automatically result in a recommendation that the rule revert to the
> STI recommendation for subsequent rounds. Mr. Beckham and Mr. Corwin agree
> with ICANN Staff that the STI Report does not constitute policy; while they
> agree that the STI Report and other background materials can be usefully
> referenced by the WG (and indeed spent the entirety of a recent call
> refreshing the WG on the STI Report), they believe that any recommendation
> to alter any provision of the RPMs and TMCH as codified in the AGB and
> having been implemented by Contracted Parties and service providers for
> several years now must be supported by consensus agreement within the WG on
> what the change should be, and we should not revert automatically to STI
> Report language based upon a finding that the RPMs and TMCH as in the AGB
> differ materially from an STI recommendation.”
>
>
>
> Philip S. Corwin
>
> Policy Counsel
>
> VeriSign, Inc.
>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> 703-948-4648/Direct
>
> 571-342-7489/Cell
>
>
>
> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>
>
>
> *From:* Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:02 AM
> *To:* Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>
> *Cc:* mary.wong at icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: FOR YOUR INFORMATION:
> Request from RPM PDP co-chairs & GNSO Council leadership response
>
>
>
> Dear Philip,
>
> I appreciate the documents may be divergent at times, what I am interested
> to know is what is/are the specific issue(s) that would be determined
> differently using each of the respective baselines?
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 2:54 PM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>
> wrote:
>
> Paul:
>
>
>
> The divergence between the co-chairs was whether the 2009 STI report or
> the final Applicant Guidebook (AGB -- 2013, I believe) constituted the
> default baseline for our TMCH review.
>
>
>
> On that matter, Council leadership responded, “ The AGB is the latest
> version of the implementation efforts developed with substantial community
> input, as now reflected in the New gTLD Registry Agreement. It should
> therefore be considered the baseline as it is the document upon which the
> Phase One RPMs are based.”
>
>
>
> I hope that fully responds to your inquiry.
>
>
>
> Best, Philip
>
>
>
> Philip S. Corwin
>
> Policy Counsel
>
> VeriSign, Inc.
>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> 703-948-4648/Direct
>
> 571-342-7489/Cell
>
>
>
> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>
>
>
> *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Paul
> Tattersfield
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 22, 2019 9:35 AM
> *To:* Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Request
> from RPM PDP co-chairs & GNSO Council leadership response
>
>
>
> Dear Mary,
>
> Is it possible to quickly summarize the specific issues where divergence
> is causing concern?
>
> Yours sincerelly,
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 2:11 PM Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Working Group members,
>
>
>
> At the request of the co-chairs, in the interests of transparency, staff
> is forwarding the message below and the two related attachments for your
> information. This has also been placed under AOB on the GNSO Council’s 22
> August meeting agenda, which is currently taking place (1200-1400 UTC):
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agenda+22+August+2019
> .
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie, Ariel & Mary
>
>
>
> *From: *Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> *Date: *Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 20:25
> *To: *"council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject: *FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Request from RPM PDP co-chairs & GNSO
> Council leadership response
>
>
>
> SENT ON BEHALF OF KEITH DRAZEK, PAM LITTLE & RAFIK DAMMAK
>
>
>
> Dear Councilors,
>
>
>
> Please see the attached request that we as the GNSO Council leadership
> team received on Monday 19 August from the RPM PDP Working Group co-chairs
> and our response, which we have just sent following a meeting with Paul
> McGrady (the Council liaison to this PDP) and ICANN policy staff.
>
>
>
> In the interests of time and to allow the Working Group to resume its
> Phase One work without delay, we decided to send the attached response as
> soon as we could. We and Paul believe that our response provides the
> requested clarity as regards the baseline from which the RPM PDP was
> chartered to perform a review of the RPMs that were developed for the 2012
> New gTLD Program round in its Phase One work. In this regard, we note that
> the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP is also proceeding from the same
> baseline.
>
>
>
> To ensure transparency in the Council leadership’s consultations with PDP
> chairs and liaisons, we are forwarding the request and our response to you
> for your information. We invite any Councilor who wishes to seek further
> information as to our discussion and response on this matter to send a note
> to the Council mailing list. We will be happy to address your questions,
> including under AOB on our upcoming call if time permits.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Keith, Pam and Rafik
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
> GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20190822/44dde336/attachment.html>