Thanks to Donna for reminding me of the reply all problem, I had already forgotten.  Too many lists....here we go again
cheers Stephanie


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] RE: GNSO Review of the GAC Communique
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 15:24:19 -0400
From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>
To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>, Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com>, council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org>


It is not too blunt as far as I am concerned.  I agree with Volker that we need to send a message on that one.  You have already given a significant concession by not pointing out that the comments of the public safety group were not sent in on time or in the usual way.
cheers Stephanie Perrin

On 2016-04-06 14:34, Austin, Donna wrote:

Susan and Rubens

 

I’ve made some changes and added a comment. While, I did use track changes I’m not confident my suggested changes are easily recognisable, so I’ll summarise them here for ease of reference.

 

Future gTLD Rounds:

 

As the GAC has outlined there are many ongoing reviews that address the new gTLD program.

 

 

The original word was PDPs and I changed this to reviews because I felt this better reflected the work efforts currently underway and is more consistent with the references in the GAC communique.

 

I also asked a question for the Council in response to the text: The community along with the board should make it a priority to ensure that there is a logical sequence in the review and resulting policy review.

Is this something the GNSO should take the lead on? The RySG and RrSG have raised this issue with the Board on a number of occasions. Bruce Tonkin is of the view that there are two efforts that need to be complete before the launch of any new gTLDs: the CCT RT and the Subsequent Round PDP.

 

I also marked up the text on underserved regions to make it more specific, but I don’t believe I changed the intent:

The GNSO council agrees that raising awareness of any future efforts to introduce new gTLDs in the underserved regions should be an important consideration. However, we would also like to note that having gTLD registry operators is only one part of the problem since registrants also need registrars or resellers with local language and payment method support.

 

PPSAI

I added a sentence to the response on this issue which some folks may think is too blunt, so I’m okay to delete if others are uncomfortable with it:

The Council notes that the GAC provided comments on the PPSAI Final Report via the Public Safety Working Group, which were considered by the Working Group. It is the hope of the Council that the GAC will not use the opportunity to discuss the Final Report of the WG as an opportunity to discuss new concerns.

 

Thanks

 

Donna

 

Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc.
Policy and Industry Affairs Manager

Cell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin@neustar.biz

 

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message.

Follow Neustar:   cid:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0 Facebook   cid:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0 LinkedIn   cid:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0 Twitter

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

 

 

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi
Sent: Monday, 4 April 2016 3:43 PM
To: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] GNSO Review of the GAC Communique

 

Hello All, 

 

Please see the attached review of the GAC Communique and the motion for consideration at the April Council meeting. 

 

Best regards, 

 

Susan Kawaguchi

Domain Name Manager 

Facebook Legal Dept.