Hi Jen

SubPro considered and addressed this scenario and made the following recommendations, supported by a rationale:

 

SubPro Recommendation 3.6: Absent extraordinary circumstances, future reviews and/or policy

development processes, including the next Competition, Consumer Choice & Consumer

Trust (CCT) Review, should take place concurrently with subsequent application rounds.

In other words, future reviews and/or policy development processes must not stop or

delay subsequent new gTLD rounds.

 

Recommendation 3.7: If the outputs of any reviews and/or policy development processes

has, or could reasonably have, a material impact on the manner in which application

procedures are conducted, such changes must only apply to the opening of the application

procedure subsequent to the adoption of the relevant recommendations by the ICANN

Board.

 

Rationale for Recommendations 3.5-3.7: When feasible, application opportunities should

be available at regular intervals. The Working Group believes that reviewing the New

gTLD Program on a regular, ongoing basis is also important, but in support of

predictability, does not believe that subsequent procedures should be paused pending

input from reviews or PDPs unless extraordinary circumstances dictate that this is

necessary.

 

In line with those recommendation, once the PDP completes its work and the recommendations are adopted, then they get applied to the next available round.  I don’t think Council can set that aside, if indeed that is the intent of your change.   I recommend we stick with the original text.

 

 

Dear All,

 

I would like to suggest the following amendment to the resolved clauses as follows (highlights denote the suggested amendments):

 

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council hereby initiates a PDP for Latin Script Diacritics; and,
2. The GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible after the adoption of the PDP Working Group Charter in order to fulfill the requirements of this PDP.
3. In initiating this PDP, the GNSO Council agrees that the completion of this PDP shall not be a dependency for the launch of the immediate Next Round for new gTLDs.

 

Best,

 

Jen

 

 

 

Dear Councilors,

 

During the informal Council meeting today, Councilors agreed to update the resolved clauses to the Initiation of a PDP on Latin Script Diacritics. The motions wiki has been updated and read as follows:

 

(updated resolved - agreed upon by Greg DiBiase and Mark Datysgeld)

Motion - Initiation of a Policy Development Process for Latin Script Diacritics

Submitted by: Greg DiBiase

Seconded by: Mark Datysgeld 

Whereas,

1. On 16 May 2024, the GNSO Council passed amotion, requesting ICANN’s Policy Support Staff to draft a Preliminary Issue Report on Latin Script Diacritics;
2. ICANN Staff published the Preliminary Issue Report on a Policy Development Process for Latin Script Diacritics for public comment on 18 July 2024, with the public comment forum closing on 27 August 2024, receiving 41 submissions;
3. ICANN staff have reviewed the forty-one (41)public comments received and published a Public Comment Summary Report on 10 September 2024;
4. The Final Issue Report on a Policy Development Process for Latin Script Diacritics was delivered to the GNSO Council on 12 September 2024;
5. ICANN Staff presented the Final Issue Report and discussed the draft Charter with Council at the 17 October 2024 GNSO Council meeting; and,
6. As indicated in the Final Issue Report, the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated that the topics recommended for review are properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and the GNSO.

 

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council hereby initiates a PDP for Latin Script Diacritics which will focus on the circumstance when an ASCII gTLD and the Latin script diacritic version of the gTLD are not variants of each other AND may be found to be visually similar to each other; and,
2. The GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible after the adoption of the PDP Working Group Charter in order to fulfill the requirements of this PDP.
3. The completion of this PDP is not a dependency for the launch of the application process for new gTLDs.