Dear WG Members, Please find the draft GNSO Council response to the ICANN Board’s letter about the work plan and timeline for this PDP. Note, this letter is still in draft form and is subject to changes by the Council. This letter, or the final version of it, is expected to be discussed and possibly agreed upon for transmission to the Board on the 13 October GNSO Council call. Best, Steve On 10/10/16, 6:56 PM, "Steve Chan" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of steve.chan@icann.org> wrote: Dear Councilors, In support of the Motion put forth by Carlos below, please find the draft GNSO Council response to the ICANN Board as prepared by Carlos, Phil, James, Keith, and Stefania. The letter is intended to synthesize the responses received from the community while also noting where common views were identified. This drafting group and staff welcome your comments and suggested edits. Best, Steve On 10/3/16, 6:41 PM, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of crg@isoc-cr.org> wrote: Dear Glen, Dear Councillors I submit this motion to approve during our next call on 13 Oct a response to Chairman Crocker´s letter from August 5th 2016, and ask for secondment: <Text> Motion on the GNSO Council Response to the ICANN Board Letter on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Made by: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Seconded by: WHEREAS, On 5 August 2016, the GNSO Council received a letter from Dr. Stephen Crocker seeking an understanding of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group’s (WG) requirements and timing related to advancing a new application process. On 16 August 2016, the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the letter and informed the ICANN Board that initial discussions within the GNSO Council and more broadly, within the GNSO community and New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, were anticipated. On 12 September 2016, the GNSO Council sent a letter to all of the GNSO’s Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, and the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG seeking input to help formulate the Council’s response to the ICANN Board. The GNSO Council received an important number of responses and divergent positions from many different individuals as well a constituencies within the GNSO community, as well as from the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG. RESOLVED, The GNSO Council has synthesized the positions received and prepared a response to the ICANN Board. The GNSO Council looks forward to ongoing discussions with the broader community, particularly at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, India. The GNSO Council expects to continue to consult with the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG to determine if there are any significant changes to its schedule or scope of work as defined in its charter. <text end> Respectfully Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) Forwarded message: > From: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> > To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg@isoc-cr.org> > Cc: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, Drazek, Keith > <kdrazek@Verisign.com>, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, > Stefania.Milan@EUI.eu <Stefania.Milan@EUI.eu>, Emily Barabas > <emily.barabas@icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, > Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> > Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - GNSO Council Response to > the ICANN Board > Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 22:34:18 +0000 > > All, > > Carlos, thank you for your comments. Seeing no volunteers to hold the > pen, staff is happy to prepare an initial draft for your > consideration, especially given the contracted timelines until the > next Council meeting. > > With a vote expected to consider and approve this letter at the 13 > October 2016 GNSO Council meeting, staff has prepared a draft motion, > also for your consideration. Unfortunately, the document and motion > deadline is today – any volunteers to put forth this motion (with > any necessary edits of course)? > > We will try to provide the draft letter as soon as possible, as > ideally, it should be available with the motion, > > Best, > > Steve > > From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg@isoc-cr.org> > Date: Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 3:00 PM > To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> > Cc: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, "Drazek, Keith" > <kdrazek@Verisign.com>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, > "Stefania.Milan@EUI.eu" <Stefania.Milan@EUI.eu>, Emily Barabas > <emily.barabas@icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, > Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> > Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - GNSO Council Response to > the ICANN Board > > Thank you vey much Steve for the excellent overview of the comments to > Chairman´s Crocker letter to date. From my personal point of view, I > belong to the group of the subsequent procedures PDP, that wonders > what the (short term vs. long term) context of the question is. And > just because of that, I´m a strong supporter of a very conservative > stance. > > My initial suggestion for a clear formulation of a response at the > Council level, is to structure around the main (contentious) > issues/areas, including its pro and con arguments, instead of listing > the source of all the different positions. From that perspective I see > 4 main areas/chapters for a structure of the response: > > 1. All the pending studies and PDPs that are analyzing the impact or > the 2012 round and will produce related recommendations: RPM, > Subsequent procedures and CCT-RT. (In general it worked well, but it > needs more refinement) > > 2. The question if the 2007 ¨policy¨ is strong enough for subsequent > procedures without any mayor changes. > > 2.a including the policy equal treatment of all applications (without > any categorization), as compared to restrictions over certain groups > of possible new TLDs (Geographic names, Communities, etc.) > > 3. if the AGB is strong enough as a ¨predictable application > process¨ for subsequent procedures, and if not, which type of > revisions it needs > > 3.a including the question of global fairness (or underserved areas) > > 4. if the ¨implementation/delegation¨ of new gTLDs of the last round > was good enough, or there are few lessons that should be carefully > analyzed and improvements introduced before new delegations > > After reading the summary document I see how a general consensus gets > more and more difficult, as we go down the list here proposed. Then it > should be pretty obvious that the Boards main question should be > answered with a pretty clear ¨NO shortcuts¨. > > But I also want to hear what the other members of the team think. > > Carlos Raúl > > El 30 sept 2016, a las 16:20, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> > escribió: > > <Input - ICANN Board Letter on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - 27 > Sept 2016.docx>