Dear Lise, Thank you for your note. As mentioned on the IOTF call this week, we have the PTI formation documents and naming function contract section headers drafted and should be able to share them with the IOTF and Sidley on the 13th, after we brief the ICANN Board. For the PTI formation documents, the timeline that was circulated showed 1 week for IOTF/Sidley review followed by 1 week for ICANN to update the documents. We expect that the process would be fluid and coordinated between ICANN and Sidley during the combined 2-week period. So perhaps a more accurate depiction would be a 2-week period for review and revision, and not a 1-week period for review and 1-week period for revision. We believe this is sufficient time given Sidley has already seen and commented on the summary of the terms for these documents, but could probably stretch it out by a few days if needed since the 2-week review and revision period does overlap with the ICANN draft Bylaws public comment summary, analysis, and update. As for the naming function contract section headers, the timeline showed a 2-week period for review, which we feel is sufficient time. Please let us know if you continue to have concerns with the timeline and we can discuss further. Warm regards, Trang From: Lise Fuhr <Fuhr@etno.eu<mailto:Fuhr@etno.eu>> Date: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 12:46 PM To: Yuko Green <yuko.green@icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org>>, Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen@icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>> Cc: "iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org>" <iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org>>, "jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>" <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Subject: Concern about the PTI document review timeline Dear Trang and Yuko, Thank you for the timeline. It looks like we are going to receive the formation documents and the head of terms for the PTI/ICANN contract on Friday the 13th. Jonathan and I have discussed that it is essential that this deadline is kept since we need time to process the documents. We have spoken with Sidley who are expressing serious concerns about the short turnaround time. After receiving advice from Sidley Jonathan and I need to bring the advice to the CWG for approval since it is the CWG which formally signs off any decision. The IOTF is not the decision making body but a very useful task force to ensure direction and that the proposed implementation is understood before bringing it to the CWG. We find the cooperation very important but we also need to stress that we have to have enough time to bring the documents to our legal advisors and the CWG - so the sooner we receive these the better. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Best, Lise On 11 May 2016, at 12:31, Yuko Green <yuko.green@icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org>> wrote: Dear members of the IOTF, As you may recall, we had presented the PTI document review timeline during our last call on 10 May (meeting #8) and mentioned that the slide needs to be updated with the new dates. I am attaching the updated timeline and the detailed timeline. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments regarding this timeline. Regards, Yuko Green Strategic Programs Manager Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693 Mobile: +1 310 745 1517 E-mail: yuko.green@icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> <PTI Timeline_11MAY16.pdf> _______________________________________________ IOTF mailing list IOTF@icann.org<mailto:IOTF@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iotf