[PC-NCSG] Fwd: RE: [council] - Preliminary Issue Report - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures

Tue Aug 25 18:54:19 EEST 2015

Any views on this?

avri

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	RE: [council] - Preliminary Issue Report - New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures
Date: 	Mon, 24 Aug 2015 20:38:49 +0100
From: 	Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
Reply-To: 	jrobinson at afilias.info
Organization: 	Afilias
To: 	'Steve Chan' <steve.chan at icann.org>, council at gnso.icann.org,
bret at uniregistry.link

Steve and GNSO Councillors,

It seems to me that we need to think about a three points here:

1.      Do we publish 31^st August i.e. ahead of the forthcoming council
meeting and such that we can deal with this at the 19 November meeting
as per option 1 below OR

2.      Do we publish 3^rd September and, if so, does that necessarily
mean we miss dealing with it on 19 November?  

3.      Regardless of 31 August or 3^rd September, do we think that a
public comment period of more than the now standard 40 day period is
necessary?

Note: My  personal opinion is that it would be OK to publish with a 40
day comment period and then extend if that was felt to be important /
necessary and that this will not be confusing.

Thoughts / input will be helpful, especially if we are to publish the
report by 31 August.

Thanks,

Jonathan

*From:*Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan at icann.org]
*Sent:* 18 August 2015 23:26
*To:* council at gnso.icann.org; bret at uniregistry.link
*Subject:* Re: [council] - Preliminary Issue Report - New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures

Bret,

Thanks, great question and hopefully the information below is beneficial
to the Council?s consideration of the 3 day hold, as well as the
discussion around the extended public comment period. Regarding next
steps and timing, here is the relevant language from the PDP Manual:

    /The Staff Manager is responsible for drafting a summary and
    analysis of the public comments received on the Issue Report and
    producing a Final Issue Report based upon the comments received. The
    Staff Manager should forward the Final Issue Report, along with any
    summary and analysis of the public comments received, to the Chair
    of the GNSO Council for consideration for initiation of a PDP./

    */The summary and analysis and the Final Issue Report are expected
    to be delivered to the Chair of the GNSO Council within 30 days of
    the closing of the public comment forum, though the Staff
    Manager may request an extension of that 30-day time for delivery./*

Without knowledge of the level of public comment that will be received,
it is difficult to estimate how long the summary and analysis and Final
Issue Report will take to prepare. However, assuming 30 days, here are
the three timelines expanded to include the next GNSO Council meeting,
as long as the document and motion deadline is met. I would note, these
are are the first, and not only, opportunities for the Council to
consider the initiation of a PDP:

  * Publish 31 August -> 40 Day Public Comment -> Close 10 October -> *9
    November PC Analysis & Final Report -> 9 November Documents &
    Motions Deadline -> 19 November GNSO Council Meeting*
  * Publish 3 September -> 40 Day Public Comment -> Close 13 October ->
    *12 November PC Analysis & Final Report -> 7 December Documents &
    Motions Deadline -> 17 December GNSO Council Meeting*
  * Publish 3 September -> 60 Day (for instance) Public Comment -> Close
    2 November ->*2 December PC Analysis & Final Report -> 7
    December* *Documents & Motions Deadline -> 17 December GNSO Council
    Meeting*

These are all estimates of course, and in the case of the first bullet,
dependent on everything executing according to plan to be able to
precisely hit the documents & motions deadline. Substantial public
comment and substantive changes to the Final Report could ultimately
derail these timelines.

Apologies for the lengthy response, but I hope this answers your questions.

Best,

Steve

*From: *Bret Fausett <bret at uniregistry.link <mailto:bret at uniregistry.link>>
*Date: *Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 2:22 PM
*To: *Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org <mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>,
"council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>"
<council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
*Subject: *Re: [council] - Preliminary Issue Report - New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures

Thanks Steve. Great news on the progress. 

On the timelines, can you remind me what happens after the close of the
comment deadline? How do we get from the close of the public comment
period to Day 1 of the PDP working group? How many Council
meetings/votes between close of comment period and starting the hard
policy work?

    Bret

    On Aug 18, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org
    <mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>> wrote:

    Dear Councilors,

    Staff is on track to be able to deliver the Preliminary Issue Report
    on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures for public comment by the end of
    August, as discussed on the previous GNSO Council meeting. However,
    I wanted to note that during the meeting, the possibility of
    providing for an extended public comment period was also discussed,
    which would keep it open through the ICANN54 meeting. This topic is
    expected to be on the agenda for the next Council meeting, scheduled
    for 03 September and as such, it may make sense to delay the
    publication of the report by approximately 3 days to allow for
    discussion during the meeting and a decision to be made, to avoid
    confusion from possibly amending the comment close date. The impact
    appears to be minimal:

      * Publish 31 August -> 40 Day Public Comment -> Close 10 October
        (note that this is a Saturday)
      * Publish 3 September -> 40 Day Public Comment -> *Close 13 October*
      * Publish 3 September -> 60 Day (for instance) Public Comment ->
        Close 2 November  

    Staff is leaning towards waiting the three days and _immediately_
    putting in the request to publish the Preliminary Issue Report after
    a decision is made, but wanted to be sure there were no strong
    objections to this approach.

    Best,

    *Steven Chan*
    Sr. Policy Manager

    *ICANN
    *12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

    Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
    steve.chan at icann.org
    <mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>
    direct: +1.310.301.3886
    mobile: +1.310.339.4410

    tel: +1.310.301.5800

    fax: +1.310.823.8649

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus