James:

 

Thank you for your inquiry in regard to Chairman Crocker’s August 5th 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 19th.

 

Based on that conversation I can convey the following preliminary views from the BC:

ˇ         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.

ˇ         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.

ˇ         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.

ˇ         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 1st 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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@icann.org>
Date: Friday, August 5, 2016 at 14:19
To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, Glen de Saint Géry <gnso-secretariat@gnso.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>
Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board@icann.org>, board-support <board-support@icann.org>, Akram Atallah <akram.atallah@icann.org>, Erika Randall <erika.randall@icann.org>, Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran@icann.org>, Eleeza Agopian <eleeza.agopian@icann.org>, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org>, Karen Lentz <karen.lentz@icann.org>, Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi@icann.org>, Cristina Flores <cristina.flores@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
Version: 2016.0.7752 / Virus Database: 4633/12811 - Release Date: 08/15/16