[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] RE: [Correspondence] Letter from Steve Crocker to James Bladel, Chair, GNSO Council
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin
Sat Aug 20 05:14:19 EEST 2016
Possibly of interest, especially since it matches our own comments in
many respects
Stephanie
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [council] RE: [Correspondence] Letter from Steve Crocker to
James Bladel, Chair, GNSO Council
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 23:39:19 +0000
From: Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>
To: James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List
<council at gnso.icann.org>
Microsoft Word - 2016-08-05-Steve-Crocker-to-James-Bladel.docx
James:
Thank you for your inquiry in regard to Chairman Crocker?s August 5^th
letter to you regarding whether ?the entirety of the current Subsequent
Procedures PDP must be completed prior to advancing a new application
process under the current policy recommendations?. I shared the letter
with members of the Business Constituency and we had a rather lengthy
discussion of this subject on the BC member call held on Thursday,
August 19^th .
Based on that conversation I can convey the following preliminary views
from the BC:
?The BC is of the general view that if there is to be a subsequent round
or a permanently open application window, it should not be unnecessarily
delayed so as to permit the timely submission of .brand applications.
?That said, the BC believes that the application window should not be
opened until all necessary reviews have been completed and their reports
and recommendations have been fully considered by the ICANN community
and Board. This includes not just the Subsequent Procedures PDP
referenced in Chairman Crocker?s letter but also the RPM Review PDP (of
which I am a WG Co-Chair) and the Consumer Choice, Competition and Trust
Review mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments.
?Chairman Crocker appears to be inquiring as to whether it is possible
for the Subsequent Procedures PDP to adopt a Work Stream 1 & 2 approach
similar to the one created for the CCWG on Accountability. The BC knows
of no precedent for such an approach within a PDP. We also observe that
the Charter created for a PDP requires it to address, at a minimum, all
the subject matter specified in the Charter and that it is the general
practice of a PDP WG to keep all issues open and subject to potential
adjustment up to publication of its proposed draft report and
recommendations. Therefore, we believe that any WS 1 & 2 approach for
any PDP would need to be specified in its initial Charter and, if not,
would require a Charter amendment to be approved by Council.
?The BC wishes its Councilors to inquire in regard to what process will
be followed within Council in forming a response to Chairman Crocker?s
letter.
Beyond those preliminary views, and speaking in a personal capacity
informed by my Co-Chair position of the RPM Review PDP, I note that our
Charter bifurcates our work into two phases, with the first being a
review of all new gTLD RPMs and the second being a review of the UDRP.
We are currently adhering to our projected work schedule and expect to
complete our review of new gTLD RPMs by mid-2017 and to deliver a final
report and recommendations (following a public comment period) to the
Council by late 2017. We will then commence the UDRP review in early
2018 and have not yet projected how long that second phase might take to
complete.
I personally see no reason why a subsequent application round would need
to await completion of the UDRP review. However, it is the strong view
of the BC that no new application round should commence until our WG?s
review of the efficacy of the RPMs has been completed and any
recommendations for change have been considered by Council and The
Board. While I have not yet discussed this matter with the other two
Co-Chairs, I personally see no practical means by which we could
prioritize our phase 1 RPM review into separate work streams; further,
doing so would require wholesale revision (and consequent disruption) of
our projected work schedule.
I hope that this rather detailed response is of assistance to you and
other Council members, and look forward to further initial discussion of
this subject during our September 1^st Council call.
Best regards,
Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597/Direct*
*202-559-8750/Fax*
*202-255-6172/Cell***
**
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 10, 2016 7:13 PM
*To:* GNSO Council List
*Subject:* [council] FW: [Correspondence] Letter from Steve Crocker to
James Bladel, Chair, GNSO Council
Councilors -
Attached, please find a letter form Steve Crocker/ICANN Board to the
Council, regarding the work on subsequent rounds of New gTLDs. (Per
Wendy?s note, the letter has not yet been posted on the ICANN
Correspondence page, but expected soon).
Note that the letter contains a specific request to the GNSO:
/?//For example, assuming all other review activities are completed, it
would be helpful to understand whether the GNSO believes that the
entirety of the current Subsequent Procedures PDP must be completed
prior to advancing a new application process under the current policy
recommendations. The Board is cognizant that it may be difficult to
provide a firm answer at this stage of the process as the reviews are
still underway and the PDP is in its initial stages of work, but if any
consideration has been given in relation to whether a future application
process could proceed while policy work continues and be iteratively
applied to the process for allocating new gTLDs, or that a set of
critical issues could be identified to be addressed prior to a new
application process, the Board would welcome that input./
/The Board would also welcome any elaboration on the expected time frame
outlined in the PDP Work Plan, as well as any additional points the GNSO
might wish to clarify for the Board in its efforts to support the
various areas of work underway in the multistakeholder community?./
I propose that we add this question/topic, and the letter itself, to our
1 SEP meeting agenda as a discussion item, and that we examine ideas on
how to proceed on responding to this question. If this is amenable, I
would also ask Staff to draft a brief note to Steve, acknowledging the
receipt of this letter and noting that it would be discussed during our
next meeting.
Thoughts on this approach?
Thank you,
J.
*From: *Wendy Profit <wendy.profit at icann.org
<mailto:wendy.profit at icann.org>>
*Date: *Friday, August 5, 2016 at 14:19
*To: *James Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>,
Glen de Saint G?ry <gnso-secretariat at gnso.icann.org
<mailto:gnso-secretariat at gnso.icann.org>>, Marika Konings
<marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>
*Cc: *Steve Crocker <steve.crocker at board.icann.org
<mailto:steve.crocker at board.icann.org>>, Icann-board ICANN
<icann-board at icann.org <mailto:icann-board at icann.org>>, board-support
<board-support at icann.org <mailto:board-support at icann.org>>, Akram
Atallah <akram.atallah at icann.org <mailto:akram.atallah at icann.org>>,
Erika Randall <erika.randall at icann.org
<mailto:erika.randall at icann.org>>, Daniel Halloran
<daniel.halloran at icann.org <mailto:daniel.halloran at icann.org>>, Eleeza
Agopian <eleeza.agopian at icann.org <mailto:eleeza.agopian at icann.org>>,
Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org
<mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>>, Karen Lentz <karen.lentz at icann.org
<mailto:karen.lentz at icann.org>>, Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi at icann.org
<mailto:cyrus.namazi at icann.org>>, Cristina Flores
<cristina.flores at icann.org <mailto:cristina.flores at icann.org>>
*Subject: *[Correspondence] Letter from Steve Crocker to James Bladel,
Chair, GNSO Council
Dear James Bladel,
Please find the attached letter from Steve Crocker, Chair, ICANN Board
of Directors regarding subsequent New gTLD rounds.
The letter will be posted shortly to the ICANN Correspondence and New
gTLD Correspondence pages:
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence
https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/correspondence
With warm regards,
Wendy Profit
ICANN Board Operations Specialist
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7752 / Virus Database: 4633/12811 - Release Date: 08/15/16
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160819/99607c30/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list