All, Thank you for the responses we have thus far. Just as a reminder, your response is due by : TODAY, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Also, please keep in mind as you respond that the Co-Chairs and the Working Group have been working in good faith throughout the process to ensure that all perspectives have been taken into account in the Final Report. The Consensus Call is not a new request for input or comments, and should not be used to raise new issues that have not been previously discussed by the Working Group. We look forward to your responses. Sincerely, Cheryl and Jeff Co-Chairs, SubPro [cid:image003.png@01D6E5A2.D1A7DC30] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Jeff Neuman Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 11:42 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Reminder #2: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC All, Just to follow up, we want to ask that everyone be as specific as possible with the areas that they do not support. For example (and I am intentionally picking extreme examples here): 1. Lets say, for whatever reason, I do not support the recommendation that "Evaluation scores on all questions be limited to a pass/fail scale (0-1 points on)", but I do support all of the other recommendation/implementation guidance in Topic 27. Rather than stating that "I do not support Topic 27", you should state "I Support all of the recommendations in Topic 27 except for Recommendation 27.2 because I believe that........" 1. Lets say that I do not support having an Applicant Support Program at all. But if there is an Applicant Support Program the recommendations / implementation guidance in the Working Group Final Report make sense. That is important information! So, rather than saying I do not support all of Topic 17, you should expressly state that "I do not support having an Applicant Support program, but if there is an Applicant Support program, then I would support the recommendations / implementation guidance in Topic 17." For the record I do support the program, I am just using an extreme example. Bottom line is that we ask you to be as specific as possible with the areas of non-support. Thanks. Jeff Neuman [cid:image005.png@01D6E5A2.D1A7DC30] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 9:41 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Reminder: FW: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC Happy New Year everyone! I hope you all were able to enjoy some time off with your loved ones (even if it was via Zoom as was the case for the Neuman Family). Just wanted to send this reminder that the due date is quickly approaching for the end of the Consensus Call: Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Welcome back and we are nearly there!!!!! Sincerely, Jeff [cid:image006.png@01D6E5A2.D1A7DC30] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 11:30 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC Dear WG members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, and as discussed during the WG meeting on Thursday, 17 December, this email is to notify you of the opening of the online Consensus Call on the WG Outputs (i.e., Affirmation, Affirmation with Modification, Recommendation, Implementation Guidance, and No Agreement) of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Pursuant to the content freeze on 18 December, please see the attached PDF of the Outputs and contextual language, which has received a handful of non-substantive updates (for a redline version that shows the minor edits made since 18 December, please see the wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Final+Report+Drafting>). WG members who wish to familiarize themselves with the steps involved and the various levels of consensus applicable to GNSO PDP recommendations can refer to the recording of the 17 December meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> where the Consensus Call process was described. This Consensus Call opens today, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 and closes on Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...>, WG members are requested to indicate via reply to this list whether they support, or do not support, the Outputs. If a WG member does not respond this will be taken as support. The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. This includes not only the work of the WG, but also the comments we received to Constituency Comments 1 & 2, the work of Work Tracks 1-5, comments to the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report. Therefore, there will likely be Outputs that you believe are imperfect, so the Co-Chairs encourage you to consider the Outputs in the aggregate. Even if given that context, you still believe there are Outputs that you do NOT support, please specifically identify the Specific Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance within the Outputs that you do cannot support and why. For the purposes of this Consensus Call, the Outputs are being organized accordingly: * Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments; * Topic 23: Closed Generics; * Topic 34: Community Applications/CPE; * Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets; and * All other Outputs in the report. As noted on the 17 December 2020 WG call, the Consensus Call is being issues to Individual Working Group members (and not to the Constituencies, Stakeholder Groups, Supporting Organizations, and/or the Advisory Committees in which such individuals participate). Therefore, WG members will be assumed to be responding to the consensus call on their own behalf unless they explicitly state in their response that they are responding on behalf of their group/organization. Following the close of the Consensus Call, the WG Co-Chairs will meet on Monday, 11 January 2021 to review the responses from the WG members and determine the Consensus Designations for the Outputs. The WG Co-Chairs will post the results of their determination to the WG email distribution list on January 11, 2021. On 12 January 2021 at 20:00 UTC, the Working Group will have its next and hopefully final call to discuss any questions or comments to the Consensus Designations. Calendar invites have been sent out to Working Group members. Although the meeting is scheduled for 120 minutes, WG leadership will stay on the call until all questions have been addressed. Working Group members will then have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to object to the Consensus Call designations. The final Consensus Call designations shall then be included in the Final Report. Finally, to the extent they are needed, WG members may begin working on minority statements now and through the Consensus Call period, with the ultimate due date of 18 January 2021. Kind regards, Steve, Julie and Emily on behalf of the SubPro Leadership Team
