Councilors, FYI, Jeff Neuman mentioned an email sent by Trang Nguyen that offered response to questions received at the GDD Summit related to New gTLD Subsequent Procedures. Please see below. Best, Steve From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 3:35 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Responses to questions raised at the 2017 GDD Summit All, At the recent 2017 GDD Summit in Madrid, Spain, the following questions relating to subsequent procedures for new gTLDs were raised: Jeff Neuman (Valideus, co-chair of New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG): There are areas we can start working without going through the PDP. On more controversial issues, working toward making proposals. Starting with the geographic names issue, which is a big issue for governments. This will be a discussion item at ICANN 59. Akram, what are your top 10 issues that need to be resolved before we can take the next step? Are there gating items you can list? Donna Austin (Neustar): If we can have some more communication from ICANN Org on how much lead time you need to prepare, and the order of things you need would be helpful. CCT Review team is almost finished. What is the next step in the process? The CDAR report – what happens with that now? Does the Board have to consider it? Does it go to a PDP? Some of these steps are unclear. We thank you for these questions and provide the following responses for your review and to help inform the ongoing work of the WG. As expressed on one of the previous WG’s calls, one of the biggest items that impact ICANN organization’s ability to begin implementation preparation and operational readiness is whether new gTLD applications would be received and processed in rounds, or on a first-come-first-serve basis. Another item currently under discussion in the WG that ICANN organization is not planning to begin implementation preparation and operational readiness on until the WG decides on a path forward is whether there would be some kind of pre-qualification for RSPs or grandfathering of current RSPs. Regarding lead time to prepare, there is preparation work that ICANN organization can begin doing while PDP discussions are taking place. The extent of such preparation work is largely dependent on the two items discussed above. We would welcome further discussions with the WG on this. For example, there were suggestions at ICANN58 that ICANN organization begin drafting the AGB. Further discussion as to what point in the WG’s discussion would it be appropriate for ICANN organization to begin drafting, and how ICANN organization is expected to interact with the WG while drafting the AGB would be helpful. Regarding the CCT reviews, the final recommendations of the review team will be considered by the Board and implemented by ICANN organization if approved. The CCT review team’s project plan anticipates publication of its final recommendations prior to ICANN60. Regarding the CDAR report that was published in March 2017, the next step for the report will be Board consideration. We hope this answer the questions raised and welcome further discussions with the WG on these topics. Regards, Trang