Are you sure that's not a typo? 5.1.1 restricts membership to noncommercial organizations, and 5.2.1 restricts membership to individuals who own domain names for personal or family use. K ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert Hoggarth Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 11:10 AM To: Avri Doria Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Formal Petition and Charter of Proposed IDNgTLD Constituency Dear Avri: Yes. Per the first paragraph of the IDNgTLD Petition Transmittal Letter: "Pursuant to the processes established by the ICANN staff, please accept the attached Petition and proposed Charter for the Internationalized Domain Name Top Level Domain (IDNgTLD) Constituency (IDNgTLDC) that we believe most appropriately positions within the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG)." Best regards, Rob Hoggarth On 4/20/09 5:26 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote: hi, Just to be clear, are they are applying for membership in the Commercial Users Stakeholder Group? a. On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 01:09 -0700, Robert Hoggarth wrote: > Dear GNSO Council Members; > > For your information, attached please find a copy of the Formal > Petition and Charter package of the proposed new IDNgTLD Constituency > submitted formally this past weekend by Dr. S. Subbiah of i-DNS.net, > Inc. > > This is now the third formal new constituency petition submitted to > the Board in the context of the GNSO Improvements effort. The Staff > will soon open a 30-day Public Comment Forum regarding the Petition. > Any comments submitted in the Forum will be summarized for the > community and Board's review. > > I will also be sending copies of the submission package to the GNSO > Constituencies list as an FYI. The document will also be posted on > the GNSO Improvements web page at > http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm . > > Please drop me a line if you have any questions or comments on this > matter. > > Best regards, > > Rob Hoggarth > > Robert L. Hoggarth, Esq. > Senior Policy Director > ICANN > > 424 558 4805 > robert.hoggarth@icann.org

Dear Kristina, Avri and other GNSO Council members: The IDNgTLD proponents have modified their petition and charter to correct the "typos" Kristina identified. The revised document is attached as an FYI. The Public Comment Forum is likely to be opened later today. Best regards, Rob Hoggarth On 4/20/09 9:10 AM, "Robert Hoggarth" <robert.hoggarth@icann.org> wrote: Kristina and Avri: Based on discussions between the proponents and staff, my impression is that the "typo" is in the Charter document Membership section. Certainly an important distinction that will need to be clarified before we post the petition for public comment. Best, Rob Hoggarth On 4/20/09 8:29 AM, "Kristina Rosette" <krosette@cov.com> wrote: Are you sure that's not a typo? 5.1.1 restricts membership to noncommercial organizations, and 5.2.1 restricts membership to individuals who own domain names for personal or family use. K ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert Hoggarth Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 11:10 AM To: Avri Doria Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Formal Petition and Charter of Proposed IDNgTLD Constituency Dear Avri: Yes. Per the first paragraph of the IDNgTLD Petition Transmittal Letter: "Pursuant to the processes established by the ICANN staff, please accept the attached Petition and proposed Charter for the Internationalized Domain Name Top Level Domain (IDNgTLD) Constituency (IDNgTLDC) that we believe most appropriately positions within the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG)." Best regards, Rob Hoggarth On 4/20/09 5:26 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote: hi, Just to be clear, are they are applying for membership in the Commercial Users Stakeholder Group? a. On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 01:09 -0700, Robert Hoggarth wrote:

Dear GNSO Council Members;

For your information, attached please find a copy of the Formal Petition and Charter package of the proposed new IDNgTLD Constituency submitted formally this past weekend by Dr. S. Subbiah of i-DNS.net, Inc.

This is now the third formal new constituency petition submitted to the Board in the context of the GNSO Improvements effort. The Staff will soon open a 30-day Public Comment Forum regarding the Petition. Any comments submitted in the Forum will be summarized for the community and Board's review.

I will also be sending copies of the submission package to the GNSO Constituencies list as an FYI. The document will also be posted on the GNSO Improvements web page at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm .

Please drop me a line if you have any questions or comments on this matter.

Best regards,

Rob Hoggarth

Robert L. Hoggarth, Esq. Senior Policy Director ICANN

424 558 4805 robert.hoggarth@icann.org

Dear Avri: Your general assumption about timing is correct. Your questions otherwise assume a level of planning and control that does not exist. Staff has been handling the various new constituencies as they have come along (i.e., a rolling basis). So far there have been four serious expression of interest. While three proponents have worked to get before the Board as soon as possible, the other has taken a less expedited approach to the process. I think the timing and pace of the more recent proponents (IDNgTLDs and Consumers) has been faster because they have had previous examples to build on (CyberSafety). The City TLD group is the only one that has yet to submit its formal petition and charter. Staff is currently unaware of any other serious proponents who are considering stepping forward. Best, Rob Hoggarth On 4/21/09 2:02 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote: Hi, thanks for the update. So this means we have 3 candidates for constituency in this pass (I really have a lot of trouble navigating the current web site - iu am sure it just me because it is improved, but i used ot know how to find things.)? I am assuming that the review period ends in time for these to be acted on by the board before the June meeting and before any new stakeholder groups would actually take their seats. BTW, will other new constituencies be considered on a rolling basis, or is staff planning to batch them. And if the policy staff has decided to batch them, what is the time interval for the next batch? thanks a. On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 13:52 -0700, Robert Hoggarth wrote:

Dear Kristina, Avri and other GNSO Council members:

The IDNgTLD proponents have modified their petition and charter to correct the "typos" Kristina identified. The revised document is attached as an FYI.

The Public Comment Forum is likely to be opened later today.

Best regards,

Rob Hoggarth

Dear Avri; Under the process we are currently following, the Staff endeavors to post formal submissions by proponents of any new GNSO constituencies as expeditiously as possible for a 30-day public/community comment forum. That would apply to the City TLD group or any other applicant. Under normal circumstances, a new petition would then be submitted to the Board at its next meeting after completion of the public comment period; but the exact date any item appears on the Board's meeting agenda is a Board matter that is not under Staff's control. I hope that's helpful feedback. Best, Rob Hoggarth On 4/21/09 4:24 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote: Hi, So can I take that to mean that if the City TLD group finished their formal statement shortly after the deadline, too late for a 30 day review before the next board meeting, you would be able initiate another 30 day review shortly after they submitted the formal petition and their application would then be on a Board agenda some reasonable time after the end of that comment period? And this would also apply to any other hitherto unknown application? thanks a. On 21 Apr 2009, at 18:09, Robert Hoggarth wrote:

Dear Avri:

Your general assumption about timing is correct. Your questions otherwise assume a level of planning and control that does not exist. Staff has been handling the various new constituencies as they have come along (i.e., a rolling basis). So far there have been four serious expression of interest. While three proponents have worked to get before the Board as soon as possible, the other has taken a less expedited approach to the process.

I think the timing and pace of the more recent proponents (IDNgTLDs and Consumers) has been faster because they have had previous examples to build on (CyberSafety). The City TLD group is the only one that has yet to submit its formal petition and charter.

Staff is currently unaware of any other serious proponents who are considering stepping forward.

Best,

Rob Hoggarth

On 4/21/09 2:02 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

thanks for the update.

So this means we have 3 candidates for constituency in this pass (I really have a lot of trouble navigating the current web site - iu am sure it just me because it is improved, but i used ot know how to find things.)? I am assuming that the review period ends in time for these to be acted on by the board before the June meeting and before any new stakeholder groups would actually take their seats.

BTW, will other new constituencies be considered on a rolling basis, or is staff planning to batch them. And if the policy staff has decided to batch them, what is the time interval for the next batch?

thanks

a.

On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 13:52 -0700, Robert Hoggarth wrote:

...

Dear Kristina, Avri and other GNSO Council members:

The IDNgTLD proponents have modified their petition and charter to correct the "typos" Kristina identified. The revised document is attached as an FYI.

The Public Comment Forum is likely to be opened later today.

Best regards,

Rob Hoggarth