I have layered my suggested changes onto Kristina's redline in the attached. I have a conflict during the first part of the call, but will be on as soon as I can join. Thanks. Jon
On Apr 24, 2017, at 2:15 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi,
I’ve added a few comments and suggestions in the Word doc (attached). Summary below:
· Recommendation 14: Requests that CCT-RT clarify how “relationship of content of a gTLD to its name” is consistent with Section 1.1(c) of the Bylaws; · Recommendations 33 & 35: Comment made about recommendation 34 (CCT to clarify how expect PDP WG to address recommendation given scope of Sub Pro WG) seems applicable here, too. · Recommendation 43: Requests CCT-RT clarify if it is recommending that applications from Global South should be subject to different application evaluation standards to ensure goals met for number of delegated strings. · Recommendation 46: added “objection-related fees” as example of “additional post application fees”.
Happy to answer any questions by email or on today’s call.
Kristina
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 8:15 AM To: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] Re: Please Review by 24 April: SubPro Comments - CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations
Hi Jon,
Thanks for this feedback. I’ve added your comment to the Google doc for easier reference during the call at 20:00 UTC.
Kind regards, Emily
From: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email <mailto:jon@donuts.email>> Date: Monday 24 April 2017 at 15:32 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Please Review by 24 April: SubPro Comments - CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations
I think that we give way too much deference to the CCT-RT report in the quote from the draft letter below. While we absolutely should take the appointed review group's input into our deliberations, does it really matter if the review group expects us to strictly interpret and implement its recommendations, for example? It is the GNSO that is tasked with recommending policy to the Board under ICANN's Bylaws. I don't think that we should be asking another group whether it thinks we have latitude to suggest alternative solutions that meet or do not meet the spirit of its recommendations. JN
"It would be helpful for the CCT-RT to clarify how strictly it expects the PDP WG to interpret and adhere to the language of the recommendations. To what extent is it appropriate for the Working Group to recommend alternative mechanisms or policies that meet the spirit of the CCT-RT recommendations? Alternately, does the CCT-RT view the obligation as more limited -- that the PDP must consider the recommendation but may end up with an outcome that is inconsistent or conflicting with CCT-RT recommendations?
If the CCT-RT expects the Working Group to strictly interpret and implement the language of the recommendations, it would be helpful to have clear definitions for terminology used in the document."
On Apr 21, 2017, at 7:39 AM, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear all,
Gentle reminder –
Please review and provide feedback on the SubPro draft comments for the CCT-RT Report prior to the full Working Group meeting on Monday 24 April at 20:00 UTC. The draft comments are available here:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LC-1-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ7... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LC-1-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ7...>.
Kind regards, Emily
From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday 18 April 2017 at 21:54 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Please Review by 24 April: SubPro Comments - CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations
Dear all,
The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG leadership team has prepared draft comments in response to the CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LC-1-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ7... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LC-1-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ7...>. The draft text draws from WG discussion with representatives of the CCT-RT on our 10 April Working Group call.
Please provide feedback and suggested edits prior to the full Working Group meeting on Monday 24 April at 20:00 UTC. For those who do not use Google Docs, a Microsoft Word version is attached to this email.
The WG will consider proposed revisions during the 24 April call, after which the leadership team will finalize and submit the text. The deadline for public comments on the CCT-RT Draft Report is 27 April 2017.
Please note that the purpose of this comment is to pose clarifying questions and make suggestions about the language of the Draft Recommendations to help the CCT-RT refine the text for the Final Report. The goal is not to provide substantive responses to the Recommendations, as the text of the Report is not yet final.
Please let the leadership team know if you have any questions.
Kind regards, Emily
Emily Barabas | Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
<KR cmts Draft SubPro Comments on CCT-RT Recommendations.docx>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>