Anne, I am not sure I share the same interpretation of this letter as you do. The way I understand it is that this group is working internally on a number of issues. They will then share that information with us (the PDP Working Group) for us to incorporate (or not incorporate) as we see fit. I actually believe it would be great work for any SO/AC, etc. to do. For example, if the IPC wanted to work internally within the IPC to suggest changes to the Legal Rights Objection process and take the output of that work and submit it to the PFP Working Group for its consideration, I think we would all welcome that. Or if the NCSG wanted to some work internally thinking about the Financial Support program, or on free speech issues, that too should be encouraged. At the end of the day, this PDP Working Group is responsible for the development of policy on the items within our charter. If any person or group wants to do some work and make proposals to the PDP on any of those issues, then please do. Perhaps I am missing something though. 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<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 1:49 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: Letter from the RySG's RSP Discussion Group Jeff, It may be important to determine which focus areas of this discussion group are "within the picket fence" and which focus areas are actually the subject of GNSO Policy Development Processes. To the extent that the topics are PDP topics, it strikes me that the Discussion Group needs to determine how they will participate in the PDP, not the other way around. ICANN has established mechanisms for policy development. We should not be altering those methods for any one constituency or stakeholder group. That is why it is important to know how this group will supply input to the PDP and on which issues. It also appears to me that some of the issues could be a matter for the Customer Service Board of the PTI entity. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D2FFD2.D20D0790] 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 Jeff Neuman Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 4:57 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Fwd: Letter from the RySG's RSP Discussion Group Forwarding this on to the entire New gTLD Working Group as an FYI. This most likely affects both Work Tracks 1 and 2, but I thought everyone should see it. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude USA / Valideus USA 1751 Pinnacle Dr., Suite 600 McLean, VA 22102 Jeff.Neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@comlaude.com> +1 (202) 549-5079 Begin forwarded message: From: "svg@milathan.ltd<mailto:svg@milathan.ltd>" <svg@milathan.ltd<mailto:svg@milathan.ltd>> Date: July 18, 2017 at 6:21:48 AM EDT To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Cc: "rsp-program-discussion@googlegroups.com<mailto:rsp-program-discussion@googlegroups.com>" <rsp-program-discussion@googlegroups.com<mailto:rsp-program-discussion@googlegroups.com>>, Graeme Bunton <gbunton@tucows.com<mailto:gbunton@tucows.com>> Subject: Letter from the RySG's RSP Discussion Group Avril, Jeff, Please find attached a correspondance from the Registry Service Provider's Discussion Group. Graeme, please share this letter with the registrars as you see fit. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" -------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com<http://post.milathan.com/> Follow me on Twitter: @stephvg -------- ________________________________ 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 Jeff. I was providing input on the suggestion that the PDP WG should be sending liaisons to these internal discussion or working groups. My point is that the discussion group should figure out how it wants to have input to the PDP and how its issues fit into the Work Tracks (or don't because they are PTI Customer Service issues). It is not the job of the Co-Chairs or any member of the WG to send out liaisons to these groups. The policy process flow is the other way. Certainly the Discussion Group can also elect to file public comment if RySG encourages that. My point is there is an existing policy process established by the GNSO. It appears to me not everything in the RySG Discussion Group is relevant to the PDP. I agree with you that any special "subset" of any stakeholder group or constituency can provide input to the PDP process. I don't think this letter actually fits that bill. It's more of a statement of "here's what we are doing". Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D2FFBD.2AB6CA90] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 11:34 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: Letter from the RySG's RSP Discussion Group Anne, I am not sure I share the same interpretation of this letter as you do. The way I understand it is that this group is working internally on a number of issues. They will then share that information with us (the PDP Working Group) for us to incorporate (or not incorporate) as we see fit. I actually believe it would be great work for any SO/AC, etc. to do. For example, if the IPC wanted to work internally within the IPC to suggest changes to the Legal Rights Objection process and take the output of that work and submit it to the PFP Working Group for its consideration, I think we would all welcome that. Or if the NCSG wanted to some work internally thinking about the Financial Support program, or on free speech issues, that too should be encouraged. At the end of the day, this PDP Working Group is responsible for the development of policy on the items within our charter. If any person or group wants to do some work and make proposals to the PDP on any of those issues, then please do. Perhaps I am missing something though. 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<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 1:49 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Letter from the RySG's RSP Discussion Group Jeff, It may be important to determine which focus areas of this discussion group are "within the picket fence" and which focus areas are actually the subject of GNSO Policy Development Processes. To the extent that the topics are PDP topics, it strikes me that the Discussion Group needs to determine how they will participate in the PDP, not the other way around. ICANN has established mechanisms for policy development. We should not be altering those methods for any one constituency or stakeholder group. That is why it is important to know how this group will supply input to the PDP and on which issues. It also appears to me that some of the issues could be a matter for the Customer Service Board of the PTI entity. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D2FFBC.42C18900] 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 Jeff Neuman Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 4:57 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Fwd: Letter from the RySG's RSP Discussion Group Forwarding this on to the entire New gTLD Working Group as an FYI. This most likely affects both Work Tracks 1 and 2, but I thought everyone should see it. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude USA / Valideus USA 1751 Pinnacle Dr., Suite 600 McLean, VA 22102 Jeff.Neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@comlaude.com> +1 (202) 549-5079 Begin forwarded message: From: "svg@milathan.ltd<mailto:svg@milathan.ltd>" <svg@milathan.ltd<mailto:svg@milathan.ltd>> Date: July 18, 2017 at 6:21:48 AM EDT To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Cc: "rsp-program-discussion@googlegroups.com<mailto:rsp-program-discussion@googlegroups.com>" <rsp-program-discussion@googlegroups.com<mailto:rsp-program-discussion@googlegroups.com>>, Graeme Bunton <gbunton@tucows.com<mailto:gbunton@tucows.com>> Subject: Letter from the RySG's RSP Discussion Group Avril, Jeff, Please find attached a correspondance from the Registry Service Provider's Discussion Group. Graeme, please share this letter with the registrars as you see fit. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" -------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com<http://post.milathan.com/> Follow me on Twitter: @stephvg -------- ________________________________ 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.