[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Draft Motion - GNSO Council Response to the ICANN Board

avri doria avri
Tue Oct 4 18:12:15 EEST 2016 

as co-chair of subpro, it works for me.

and is consistent with the position NCSG took a while back to not rush
and let the PDP WG do it job.

avri


On 04-Oct-16 09:29, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> need to consider position on this
>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	[council] Draft Motion - GNSO Council Response to the ICANN
> Board
> Date: 	Mon, 03 Oct 2016 19:41:08 -0600
> From: 	Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G. <crg at isoc-cr.org>
> To: 	G?ry Glen de Saint <Glen at icann.org>, GNSO Council List
> <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
>
> Dear Glen,
>
> Dear Councillors
>
> I submit this motion to approve during our next call on 13 Oct a 
> response to Chairman Crocker?s letter from August 5th 2016, and ask for 
> secondment:
>
> <Text>
>
> Motion on the GNSO Council Response to the ICANN Board Letter on New 
> gTLD Subsequent Procedures
>
> Made by: Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez
> Seconded by:
>
> WHEREAS,
>
> On 5 August 2016, the GNSO Council received a letter from Dr. Stephen 
> Crocker seeking an understanding of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures 
> Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group?s (WG) requirements and 
> timing related to advancing a new application process.
>
> On 16 August 2016, the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the letter 
> and informed the ICANN Board that initial discussions within the GNSO 
> Council and more broadly, within the GNSO community and New gTLD 
> Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, were anticipated.
>
> On 12 September 2016, the GNSO Council sent a letter to all of the 
> GNSO?s Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, and the New gTLD Subsequent 
> Procedures PDP WG seeking input to help formulate the Council?s 
> response to the ICANN Board.
>
> The GNSO Council received an important number of responses and divergent 
> positions from many different individuals as well a constituencies 
> within the GNSO community, as well as from the New gTLD Subsequent 
> Procedures PDP WG.
>
> RESOLVED,
>
> The GNSO Council has synthesized the positions received and prepared a 
> response to the ICANN Board.
>
> The GNSO Council looks forward to ongoing discussions with the broader 
> community, particularly at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, India.
>
> The GNSO Council expects to continue to consult with the New gTLD 
> Subsequent Procedures PDP WG to determine if there are any significant 
> changes to its schedule or scope of work as defined in its charter.
>
> <text end>
>
> Respectfully
>
> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez
> +506 8837 7176
> Skype: carlos.raulg
> Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
> Forwarded message:
>
> > From: Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>
> > To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg at isoc-cr.org>
> > Cc: Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>, Drazek, Keith 
> > <kdrazek at Verisign.com>, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>, 
> > Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>, Emily Barabas 
> > <emily.barabas at icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, 
> > Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com>
> > Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - GNSO Council Response to 
> > the ICANN Board
> > Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 22:34:18 +0000
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Carlos, thank you for your comments. Seeing no volunteers to hold the 
> > pen, staff is happy to prepare an initial draft for your 
> > consideration, especially given the contracted timelines until the 
> > next Council meeting.
> >
> > With a vote expected to consider and approve this letter at the 13 
> > October 2016 GNSO Council meeting, staff has prepared a draft motion, 
> > also for your consideration. Unfortunately, the document and motion 
> > deadline is today ? any volunteers to put forth this motion (with 
> > any necessary edits of course)?
> >
> > We will try to provide the draft letter as soon as possible, as 
> > ideally, it should be available with the motion,
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg at isoc-cr.org>
> > Date: Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 3:00 PM
> > To: Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>
> > Cc: Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>, "Drazek, Keith" 
> > <kdrazek at Verisign.com>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, 
> > "Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu" <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>, Emily Barabas 
> > <emily.barabas at icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, 
> > Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com>
> > Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - GNSO Council Response to 
> > the ICANN Board
> >
> > Thank you vey much Steve for the excellent overview of the comments to 
> > Chairman?s Crocker letter to date. From my personal point of view, I 
> > belong to the group of the subsequent procedures PDP, that wonders 
> > what the (short term vs. long term) context of the question is. And 
> > just because of that, I?m a strong supporter of a very conservative 
> > stance.
> >
> > My initial suggestion for a clear formulation of a response at the 
> > Council level, is to structure around the main (contentious) 
> > issues/areas, including  its pro and con arguments, instead of listing 
> > the source of all the different positions. From that perspective I see 
> > 4 main areas/chapters for a structure of the response:
> >
> > 1. All the pending studies and PDPs that are analyzing the impact or 
> > the 2012 round and will produce related recommendations: RPM, 
> > Subsequent procedures and CCT-RT. (In general it worked well, but it 
> > needs more refinement)
> >
> > 2. The question if the 2007 ?policy? is strong enough for subsequent 
> > procedures without any mayor changes.
> >
> > 2.a including the policy equal treatment of all applications (without 
> > any categorization), as compared to restrictions over certain groups 
> > of possible new TLDs (Geographic names, Communities, etc.)
> >
> > 3. if the AGB  is strong enough as a ?predictable application 
> > process? for subsequent procedures, and if not, which type of 
> > revisions it needs
> >
> > 3.a including the question of global fairness (or underserved areas)
> >
> > 4. if the ?implementation/delegation? of new gTLDs of the last round 
> > was good enough, or there are few lessons that should be carefully 
> > analyzed and improvements introduced before new delegations
> >
> > After reading the summary document I see how a general consensus gets 
> > more and more difficult, as we go down the list here proposed. Then it 
> > should be pretty obvious that the Boards main question should be 
> > answered with a pretty clear ?NO shortcuts?.
> >
> > But I also want to hear what the other members of the team think.
> >
> > Carlos Ra?l
> >
> > El 30 sept 2016, a las 16:20, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org> 
> > escribi?:
> >
> > <Input - ICANN Board Letter on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - 27 
> > Sept 2016.docx>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


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

More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list