Dear Paul and everyone, When the Working Group first began discussions on the TMCH in 2017, staff prepared the following wiki page that lists (among other documents) the final version of the TMCH from the Applicant Guidebook (AGB), the STI Review Team’s recommendations and the various iterations of the AGB between the STI timeframe and the final AGB (including the public comment periods and Explanatory Memoranda that were issued): https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864. As you’ll recall, staff also circulated a Chronological Timeline of the TMCH at the time, which was recently updated following consultations with the Working Group co-chairs, and re-circulated about two weeks ago: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-08-07+Review+of+all+Ri... We hope these links and documents are helpful. Cheers Julie, Ariel & Mary From: Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 10:41 To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: Re: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Request from RPM PDP co-chairs & GNSO Council leadership response Phillip, I appreciate the documents may be divergent at times and I fully understand as a result that there may or may not be consequences. What I am trying to ascertain is - What is(are) the actual specific provision(s) that will be determined differently under each baseline scenario that are causing this matter to be raised now? Thanks, Paul On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 3:07 PM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> wrote: Paul, the consequence of the disagreement is explained in this passage from the Co-Chair’s letter: “ Standard for recommending changes – The answer to this question is dependent on the answer to the first. Ms. Kleiman believes that if the WG reaches consensus agreement that any provision of the AGB differs materially from a related provision of the STI Report this should be regarded as an indication that implementation differs from policy and should automatically result in a recommendation that the rule revert to the STI recommendation for subsequent rounds. Mr. Beckham and Mr. Corwin agree with ICANN Staff that the STI Report does not constitute policy; while they agree that the STI Report and other background materials can be usefully referenced by the WG (and indeed spent the entirety of a recent call refreshing the WG on the STI Report), they believe that any recommendation to alter any provision of the RPMs and TMCH as codified in the AGB and having been implemented by Contracted Parties and service providers for several years now must be supported by consensus agreement within the WG on what the change should be, and we should not revert automatically to STI Report language based upon a finding that the RPMs and TMCH as in the AGB differ materially from an STI recommendation.” Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com<mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:02 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> Cc: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Request from RPM PDP co-chairs & GNSO Council leadership response Dear Philip, I appreciate the documents may be divergent at times, what I am interested to know is what is/are the specific issue(s) that would be determined differently using each of the respective baselines? Yours sincerely, Paul. On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 2:54 PM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> wrote: 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 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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+Agend.... Best regards, Julie, Ariel & Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 20:25 To: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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.