Thanks Sarah.
Cheryl and Rubens, to be clear Straw Proposal 2 actually contemplated a list of Pre-Approved Services that would need to be determined. This is not displayed on the slide I think but I have picked it up from
my previous e-mail proposing the second part of Straw Proposal 2:
“Applicant acknowledges that ICANN may establish two application evaluation tracks which will operate separately, one for applications which propose new registry services and one for applications which contain
only the following pre-approved registry services: LIST PRE-APPROVED SERVICES HERE (TO BE DISCUSSED ON THE NEXT CALL).”
Could you please check your slide for Straw Proposal 2 in this regard as well as Page 15? It looked to me as though the analysis stated that Straw Proposal 2 did NOT provide for a list of new services (to be
determined), but that is not the case.
Anne
|
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese |
|
Of Counsel |
|
520.629.4428 office |
|
520.879.4725 fax |
|
_____________________________ |
|
|
|
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP |
|
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 |
|
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 |
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Langstone, Sarah via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2017 1:09 PM
To: 'gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org'
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Service Strawman
Folks I am unable to make the next call (on a plane) but wanted to give my 0.02
I am warmer on Strawman 2 – caveat being that both tracks are adequately resourced to ensure that those that require additional approvals are not held up particularly as increasing/encouraging innovation was a principle
behind the program.
S