[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Deadline Extended: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report - Public Comment

Fri Aug 24 02:27:42 EEST 2018

Thanks Farzaneh, that is good for us.
I touched base few days ago with Elsa and Bruna regarding the status of our
draft and we are currently progressing.  I think Kathy is also helping for
the review and Robin will be consulted too.
as reminder we organized few weeks ago a NCSG webinar (
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Webinars) on the
report presented by Robin where she highlighted the most important and
relevant topics for us, I advice everyone to listen to it. while the report
is 300 pages (there are appendices etc), it can be easier to listen to the
webinar and check the spreadsheet made by the WG with all the
recommendations and questions organized by topic.

Best,

Rafik

Le ven. 24 août 2018 à 01:31, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> a
écrit :

> we got some time for this huge document to comment on. A big Phew.
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Emily Barabas
>
>
> Dear Farzaneh,
>
>
>
> We are writing to let you know that the public comment period
> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-2018-07-03-en>
> for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report has been
> extended. Public comments will now be accepted through *26 September 2018*.
> Can you kindly assist in sharing this information with the relevant members
> of your group?
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman (WG Co-Chairs)
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 4 July 2018 at 04:50
> *To: *farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *"jeff.neuman at comlaude.com" <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>, Cheryl
> Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com>, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>,
> Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, Emily Barabas <
> emily.barabas at icann.org>, Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>, "
> gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
> *Subject: *New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report - Public
> Comment
>
>
>
> Dear Farzaneh,
>
>
>
> We write to you as the Co-Chairs of the GNSO’s New gTLD Subsequent
> Procedures Working Group (WG), which is tasked with calling upon the
> community’s collective experiences from the 2012 New gTLD Program round to
> consider potential changes that may be needed to the existing 2007
> Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains policy recommendations and
> implementation. We are pleased to share that the Working Group has reached
> an important milestone by publishing its Initial Report for Public
> Comment [icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_gtld-2Dsubsequent-2Dprocedures-2Dinitial-2D2018-2D07-2D03-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=4gYyCwhtEI98RlWT6m_3FasU_W94CPJVbYvXvdaDxws&s=TwT7TfmDQ6Na2XFI7TKEFTn4pi5z-7JSXypjqAP6rRE&e=>.
> We would like to strongly encourage you to review this report and provide
> feedback through public comment on the draft preliminary recommendations,
> options, and questions for community feedback. Your input is essential to
> the success of this PDP.
>
> *1.    Background on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG*
>
> The GNSO’s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group (WG), which was
> chartered by the GNSO Council to conduct a Policy Development Process
> (PDP), is seeking to determine what, if any, changes may need to be made to
> the existing *Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains*
> [gnso.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issues_new-2Dgtlds_pdp-2Ddec05-2Dfr-2Dparta-2D08aug07.htm&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=4gYyCwhtEI98RlWT6m_3FasU_W94CPJVbYvXvdaDxws&s=fAYAOAlC7DqbvB0WyYMiIOXAkUC6kzqPgR62nsJhHCQ&e=> policy
> recommendations from 8 August 2007 as well as the final Applicant
> Guidebook [newgtlds.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_applicants_agb&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=4gYyCwhtEI98RlWT6m_3FasU_W94CPJVbYvXvdaDxws&s=iK3CVAc8mCe_CJRGZTBv2B_bDcoekw7F1Tg2uNLpbsI&e=>
> dated June 2012. As the original policy recommendations as adopted by the
> GNSO Council and ICANN Board have “been designed to produce systemized and
> ongoing mechanisms for applicants to propose new top-level domains,” those
> policy recommendations remain in place for subsequent rounds of the New
> gTLD Program unless the GNSO Council would decide to modify those policy
> recommendations via a policy development process. The PDP WG created 5 Work
> Tracks that are responsible for considering the subjects within its
> charter. The PDP WG sought community input through two community comment
> periods. The Working Group has produced its Initial Report, which includes
> material from the full Working Group and Work Tracks 1-4. Work Track 5,
> focused on Geographic Names at the Top-Level, was established later than
> the other Work Tracks and will produce a separate Initial Report.
>
>
>
> *2.    Information about the Initial Report and the Public Comment*
>
> The objective of this Initial Report is to document the Working Group’s
> deliberations on charter issues and preliminary recommendations, potential
> options for recommendations, as well as specific questions for which the
> Working Group is seeking input. Given the large number of issues, and the
> thousands of hours spent on addressing the 2012 New gTLD Program and
> improvements that can be made to the program moving forward, unlike other
> Initial Reports, this one does not contain a “Statement of level of
> consensus for the recommendations presented in the Initial Report.” The
> Co-Chairs not only believed that it was premature to measure the level of
> consensus of the Working Group members of dozens of recommendations
> contained within the Initial Report, but that doing so could have the
> unintended consequence of locking Working Group members into positions of
> support or opposition prior to soliciting public comment from the community
> on those recommendations. To form such definitive positions at this early
> of a stage could have the adverse effect of being less open to
> modifications to those positions as a result of community input.
>
>
>
> In addition, though many of the preliminary recommendations were generally
> agreed to by members that participated in the different Work Tracks,
> support has not been assessed amongst the members of the overall Working
> Group. The Overall Working Group has not sought to form definitive
> positions on each of these issues at this stage. Therefore, any language in
> this report that suggests that the Working Group or any of its Work Tracks
> is making a recommendation should be read as merely a rough assessment by
> the Working Group Co-Chairs or Work Track leads.
>
>
>
> After a comprehensive review of public comments received on this report,
> the Working Group will deliberate further on the preliminary
> recommendations contained within the Initial Report. It is possible that as
> a result of the deliberations, there may be supplemental reports released
> by the Working Group seeking additional public comments. Once all of that
> is completed, the Co-Chairs will conduct any formal consensus call(s) at
> the plenary level, on all recommendations before the Working Group issues
> its Final Report.
>
>
>
> Thank you for your consideration of this request. We look forward to any
> comments and any input that you and the organization you Chair are able to
> provide to our WG. While we of course welcome input on any area of the
> report, we would like to stress that given the extensive number of topics
> and preliminary outcomes, you should not feel compelled to respond to every
> single preliminary recommendation, option, and question. If possible,
> please submit your comments and input to us by 5 September 2018 so that we
> may fully consider it in our further deliberations.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman (WG Co-Chairs)
>
>
>
>
>
> Nathalie Peregrine
>
> Manager, Operations Support (GNSO)
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> Email: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org
> <http://nathalie.peregrine@icann.org%20>
>
> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann
>
>
>
> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and
> visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DgMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=-d9m4sr16OXloyLjz4TF6npbe51hgE0EHtoX1U6WUOA&s=Bw2Uzbh2Pu1X0lObLtbwtN5ZNEP3ECdPAfcqzVvIOYE&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180824/592775cd/attachment.htm>