Thank you, Anne, and my apologies for the oversight. The item is now captured on the wiki, in the tracking spreadsheet, and in the Production Document.

 

Kind regards,

Emily

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>
Date: Tuesday, 2 June 2020 at 19:39
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: Deadline April 30 - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 2

 

Dear WG members,

Below is a description of my question about possible Code of Conduct exemptions to use unaccredited registrars.   (This relates to Package 2.)

Anne

 

From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 1:43 PM
To: 'Emily Barabas' <emily.barabas@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl@hovtek.com.au) <cheryl@hovtek.com.au>
Subject: RE: Deadline April 30 - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 2

 

Thanks Emily.  I am submitting an “issues sheet” comment on Package 2 but need to clarify the question shown in the attachment.  The language in 2.10.2 redrafts the affirmation regarding the requirement to use ICANN-accredited registrars.  It appears to state that the WG endorses the idea that a registry can get a Code of Conduct exemption that would allow it to use unaccredited registrars.

 

I don’t recall that being a consensus of the Working Group so I am trying to understand why the document implies that we are okay with ICANN granting exemptions from the Code of Conduct to allow registries to use unaccredited registrars.  I’m sure Jeff and Cheryl can shed some light on this.

 

It’s possible I’ll have more comments on the Package 2 before the April 30 deadline.

 

Thank you,

Anne

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 1:13 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline April 30 - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 2

 

[EXTERNAL]

Dear all,

 

As discussed on today’s call, the leadership team is releasing the second set of revised draft recommendations for your review.

 

  1. There are 5 topics in package 2 here, beginning on page 17: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]

 

 

  1. Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format.

 

  1. Deadline for comments is Thursday April 30 at 23:59 UTC

 

  1. Comments will be tracked here:  https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw.

 

Kind regards,

Emily

 

Emily Barabas

Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

www.icann.org [icann.org]

 

 


This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.