I agree that the letter is not the most clear on this. Steve is likely referring to what commitments were made to the GAC on what must be completed prior to starting another application window. Those commitments are the Root Zone study (CDAR Report) which was completed as well as the reports on the Trademark Clearinghouse (by the Analysis Group) as well as the CCT-RT activities.

The two PDPs technically (SubPro and RPM Review) were not included as pre-requisites to initiation of the next application window. In theory the completion of these PDFs are not required to be completed by the Board before the next “round”, but I am sure that many of the community believe that these are still important inputs into the process.

I am not too concerned that the PDPs were not listed as such and we will continue to do our work.

Best regards,

Jeffrey J. Neuman

Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA

1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600

Mclean, VA 22102, United States

E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com

T: +1.703.635.7514

M: +1.202.549.5079

@Jintlaw

From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 9:29 AM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: [Correspondence] Steve Crocker to Paul Diaz - response to June 7th RySG letter

Thanks Jeff.

I am confused by this section of the letter:

As the Registry Stakeholder Group is aware, previous commitments were made for certain

activities to be completed before considering when to open another application process for

gTLDs, including:

¤ A review of the effects of the New gTLD Program on the operations of the DNS root system

¤ A review of the trademark clearinghouse

¤ A review of the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system

¤ A review of the impact of the New gTLD Program on competition, consumer trust, and

consumer choice

In addition, the Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group is working to determine how

additional gTLDs will be introduced.

While the first three reviews are completed, the last one and the PDP are still underway. (Emphasis added)

What are the reviews that Chairman Crocker is characterizing as “completed”?

The RPM Review WG, of which I am a co-chair, is in the midst of but has not yet completed its review of the TMCH, much less agreed on any consensus recommendations for alteration of its standards or practices.

And our review of the URS, which is the last item on our Phase 1 agenda, will not commence until later this year and will likely carry over into the first part of 2018.

Thank you in advance for any further light you can shed on this matter.

Best, Philip

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 9:19 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: [Correspondence] Steve Crocker to Paul Diaz - response to June 7th RySG letter

Forwarding this purely as an FYI.