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.... 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 | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
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.... Kind regards, Emily From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> Date: Tuesday 18 April 2017 at 21:54 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <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.... 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 | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
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> 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> Date: Tuesday 18 April 2017 at 21:54 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <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 | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
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> Date: Monday 24 April 2017 at 15:32 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <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.... 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.... 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
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.... 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.... 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
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>
Am attending a cybersecurity conference all day and therefore regret that I will miss today's WG call. 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 Sent from my iPad On Apr 24, 2017, at 2:48 PM, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email<mailto:jon@donuts.email>> wrote: 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<mailto: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> [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<mailto:jon@donuts.email>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto: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.... 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.... 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 <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 <KR JN cmts Draft SubPro Comments on CCT-RT Recommendations.docx> <signature.asc>
Jon, I would have to pose a question about the purpose of the Reviews. What is the purpose of a Review if it is not meant to affect the policy-making process? Wouldn’t it just be so much noise – in one ear and out the other of the GNSO? Admittedly input is just input but isn’t this an essential element of the Multi-Stakeholder model? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D2BCDC.F3FC4930] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 6:33 AM To: Emily Barabas Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: 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.... 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.... 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 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Thanks Anne. My point isn't that the CCT shouldn't affect the policy-making process. It should. My point is that we shouldn't leave the impression with them or anyone else that the CCT is able to dictate the policy-making process. Best, Jon
On Apr 24, 2017, at 12:27 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Jon, I would have to pose a question about the purpose of the Reviews. What is the purpose of a Review if it is not meant to affect the policy-making process? Wouldn’t it just be so much noise – in one ear and out the other of the GNSO? Admittedly input is just input but isn’t this an essential element of the Multi-Stakeholder model? Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org]On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 6:33 AM To: Emily Barabas Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: 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>
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
I see Jon. The funny thing is that I thought the tone was actually in the opposite direction. To me it sounded like – “if you expect us to take your recommendations seriously, you are going to have to define your terms”. I thought that was a bit cheeky. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D2BCDF.B481CCA0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@donuts.email] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 9:42 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Emily Barabas; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Please Review by 24 April: SubPro Comments - CCT-RT Draft Report and Recommendations Thanks Anne. My point isn't that the CCT shouldn't affect the policy-making process. It should. My point is that we shouldn't leave the impression with them or anyone else that the CCT is able to dictate the policy-making process. Best, Jon On Apr 24, 2017, at 12:27 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Jon, I would have to pose a question about the purpose of the Reviews. What is the purpose of a Review if it is not meant to affect the policy-making process? Wouldn’t it just be so much noise – in one ear and out the other of the GNSO? Admittedly input is just input but isn’t this an essential element of the Multi-Stakeholder model? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org]On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 6:33 AM To: Emily Barabas Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: 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.... 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.... 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 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
The CCT-RT report goes to the Board for approval and implementation. That is in the Bylaws. But we know that the Board does not have the power to direct the GNSO to include a specific recommendation in a PDP. But the Board does have the ability to reject PDP recommendations and it could in theory do tat if our recommendations are not in line with the CCT-RT Recommendations. Alan At 24/04/2017 12:42 PM, Jon Nevett wrote:
Thanks Anne. My point isn't that the CCT shouldn't affect the policy-making process. It should. My point is that we shouldn't leave the impression with them or anyone else that the CCT is able to dictate the policy-making process.
Best,
Jon
On Apr 24, 2017, at 12:27 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Jon, I would have to pose a question about the purpose of the Reviews. What is the purpose of a Review if it is not meant to affect the policy-making process? Wouldnât it just be so much noise in one ear and out the other of the GNSO? Admittedly input is just input but isnât this an essential element of the Multi-Stakeholder model? Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 <http://lrrc.com/>lrrc.com
From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org]On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 6:33 AM To: Emily Barabas Cc: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: 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 <<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>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-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ7z58/edit?usp=sharing>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LC-1-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ7z58/edit?usp=sharing.
Kind regards, Emily
From: Emily Barabas <<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>emily.barabas@icann.org> Date: Tuesday 18 April 2017 at 21:54 To: "<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>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-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ7z58/edit?usp=sharing>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LC-1-Z2auN2XTSJXyW34eWnGgNuuDInIOeJ1TcZ7z58/edit?usp=sharing. 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: <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
----------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:60c2b3LL6FcywLOkURxLaV1U0J8dmt8FL+HbbsAAJyUbTClJ5LrfoGQs0Y/Fh2QvLNW1c1vADrsXQpgWa5r7Rw0e7DVBJ6f5gz7gj7cw+lyr1tUr67z1WpsouyTU3+Oxh4MrFxgdHRLjYpCn8X5mfQ== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000033)(400125000037)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001033)(400125100037)(400001002033)(400125200037);
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:60c2b3LL6FcywLOkURxLaV1U0J8dmt8FL+HbbsAAJyUbTClJ5LrfoGQs0Y/Fh2QvLNW1c1vADrsXQpgWa5r7Rw0e7DVBJ6f5gz7gj7cw+lyr1tUr67z1WpsouyTU3+Oxh4MrFxgdHRLjYpCn8X5mfQ== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000033)(400125000037)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001033)(400125100037)(400001002033)(400125200037);
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
participants (6)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Alan Greenberg -
Emily Barabas -
Jon Nevett -
Phil Corwin -
Rosette, Kristina