Hi,
ICANN Org states:
ICANN org seeks clarity on whether the PDP WG intends for the maintenance of the
2012 AGB provisions contained in section 2.2.1.4.2. as a policy or if this is intended to be
a Recommendation to maintain the implementation effort that was done through the
AGB. If the later, can the PDP WG provide additional guidance on some issues that arose
during the 2012 round, such as understanding the definition of "relevant governments
or public authorities" (at city, state, country and continent level) and the impact that
geopolitical changes within a region might have on what qualifies as the "relevant
governments or public authorities" during the application processing period? Will the
applicant be required to provide new documents of support or non-objection from new
"relevant governments or public authorities"?
My gut feeling is that most geo names will be city names. I called several times for a support letter tailor-made for city governments. When should that happen? Is that Staff (implementation) action or WG action?
If I provide the current letter to a U.S. mayor: their eyes will bulge. The current draft letter is absolutely not suitable for city strings.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Karen Lentz
Sent: Donnerstag, 1. Oktober 2020 03:21
To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: ICANN Org SubPro comments
Dear all,
Forwarding for your information the input from ICANN org to the draft Final Report. We have also submitted this for addition into the comment tool being used for this comment forum.
Best regards,
Karen
Dear Cheryl and Jeff,
Please find the attached letter and submission from ICANN org regarding the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group Draft final report.
I hope you and your families are well.
Kind regards,
Theresa