Bret, I wanted to address your question related to process. The output from this group will not directly lead to the initiation of a PDP. Instead, it may serve as the basis for the GNSO Council to request an Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (as a reminder, here are is the set of information that should ideally be provided as part of that request: https://community.icann.org/x/GQllAg). The DG¹s work will likely contribute heavily to staff drafting the Preliminary Issue Report. Contained within the Preliminary Issue Report is also the charter, all of which will be posted for public comment. Once the public comment period is completed, staff will produce a Final Issue Report, taking into account comments received. That Final Issue Report will be sent to the GNSO Council for consideration for initiation of a PDP. What and how the DG intends to produce its outputs is up to the group itself, as there is not necessarily formal process around discussion groups. So in regards to your question about whether public comment is necessary, it is up to the group and from a staff perspective, we have no strong opinion either way. The public comment period embedded in the generation of the Issue Report is expected to assess whether information contained is accurate and complete, not necessarily to change the overall scope. Also, that public comment period will be focused on the Preliminary Issue Report and not directly on the work of the DG. Hope this helps. Best, Steve From: Bret Fausett <bret@uniregistry.link> Date: Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 3:48 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Any Recent Activity

No objections to the schedule, but it seems like we are losing a lot of time. If you need help with the work plan or any of the documents, let me know. It seems like we have fallen off time targets and it would be great to be in a position to start a pdp on this soon.

I think the Los Angeles meeting took some wind out of our sails, as my sense of the room was that we needed to wait for further inputs and work in parallel to some external processes. We now have received the Staff report but we still have other reviews of which we will need to take account in preparing the Draft Charter and in the policy work that will take place later. I don¹t know that starting the policy process earlier necessarily means that subsequent rounds will start earlier, but I appreciate the need to move forward, with due consideration of the big picture and the many reviews now underway, and thank you for kick-starting this. Steve and I spoke in Singapore about having bi-weekly calls from now to completion, so look for an invite and schedule in the next few days. I¹d really like to get this to the Names Council for approval before or at the Buenos Aires meeting, so let¹s think about a work plan that will allow that to happen. To your point at the Council meeting in Singapore, I¹d like to get some staff input on the required public comment periods prior to launching a PDP. We had talked about having a public comment period just for our draft report, but if the same report, more or less, is going to pass through a mandatory public comment period at some in the near term, I think we should develop a work plan that uses the mandatory comment period and skips the elective comment period. No point in have two comment period on essentially the same piece of work. Perhaps Marika or Steve could update us on what is required between now and launching the formal PDP. Bret -- Bret Fausett, Esq. General Counsel, Uniregistry, Corp. 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 mobile +1 310 985 1351 office +1 949 706 2300 x4201 UTC -8 hours € http://uniregistry.link