Paul:
The divergence between the co-chairs was whether the 2009 STI report or the final Applicant Guidebook (AGB -- 2013, I believe) constituted the default baseline for our TMCH review.
On that matter, Council leadership responded, “ The AGB is the latest version of the implementation efforts developed with substantial community input, as now reflected in the New gTLD Registry Agreement. It should therefore be considered the baseline as it is the document upon which the Phase One RPMs are based.”
I hope that fully responds to your inquiry.
Best, Philip
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Paul Tattersfield
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 9:35 AM
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Request from RPM PDP co-chairs & GNSO Council leadership response
Dear Mary,
Is it possible to quickly summarize the specific issues where divergence is causing concern?
Yours sincerelly,Paul.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 2:11 PM Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Working Group members,
At the request of the co-chairs, in the interests of transparency, staff is forwarding the message below and the two related attachments for your information. This has also been placed under AOB on the GNSO Council’s 22 August meeting agenda, which is currently taking place (1200-1400 UTC): https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agenda+22+August+2019.
Best regards,
Julie, Ariel & Mary
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>
Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 20:25
To: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject: FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Request from RPM PDP co-chairs & GNSO Council leadership response
SENT ON BEHALF OF KEITH DRAZEK, PAM LITTLE & RAFIK DAMMAK
Dear Councilors,
Please see the attached request that we as the GNSO Council leadership team received on Monday 19 August from the RPM PDP Working Group co-chairs and our response, which we have just sent following a meeting with Paul McGrady (the Council liaison to this PDP) and ICANN policy staff.
In the interests of time and to allow the Working Group to resume its Phase One work without delay, we decided to send the attached response as soon as we could. We and Paul believe that our response provides the requested clarity as regards the baseline from which the RPM PDP was chartered to perform a review of the RPMs that were developed for the 2012 New gTLD Program round in its Phase One work. In this regard, we note that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP is also proceeding from the same baseline.
To ensure transparency in the Council leadership’s consultations with PDP chairs and liaisons, we are forwarding the request and our response to you for your information. We invite any Councilor who wishes to seek further information as to our discussion and response on this matter to send a note to the Council mailing list. We will be happy to address your questions, including under AOB on our upcoming call if time permits.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Keith, Pam and Rafik
_______________________________________________
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.