ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-vi-feb10] Question regarding the role of the PDP in the development of DAGv4

  • To: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question regarding the role of the PDP in the development of DAGv4
  • From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 08:59:42 -0800


To answer your question, my understanding is that conclusion of the PDP is not 
a compulsory step before the DAGv4, as is explained in greater detail in the 
Issues Report.   The implementation process for new gTLDs is continuing to 
proceed on a parallel path to the VI-PDP, which is expected to result in a 
proposed model on vertical integration to be included in the DAGv4.  

If the GNSO desires to affect the initial round of applications, it needs to 
move quickly to produce a recommendation that could be voted on by the Board 
and implemented by Staff in its finalization of the Applicant Guidebook.   

Best regards,

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:26 AM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Tomorrow's call

Thanks Avri,

Let's keep to the scheduled time then. Others may not be able to work any 
change of time into their schedule either. And I for one think your 
contributions are of great value to the group and I would not like to see you 
miss the call.

You raise a couple of crucial points in your email.

Margie, it would be good to be able to confirm or deny the rumour that this PDP 
is indeed a compulsory step before DAGv4. In the issues report you wrote in the 
build-up to this PDP, I was under the impression you were saying exactly the 
opposite and that whatever work was done on this PDP, it would not impact the 
build-up towards the first round.

Further, on a personal note, I fully agree with Avri that we should not work 
with our mind set on asking Council for an extension, but rather the opposite. 
We should aim to keep to Council's initial 16-week deadline. I think we can 
work quickly and still avoid shoddiness.



Le 9 févr. 2010 à 11:09, Avri Doria a écrit :

> Hi,
> If I can join the earlier call at all, it will be late.
> so apologies in advance.
> Then again my contributions are in print on the wiki, so it really does not 
> matter if i am there.
> The only thing i ask is that we not accept missing next week's council 
> meeting with a proposed charter as a given.  I also ask that we do not 
> already give up the goal of trying to this PDP within something close to the 
> 16 weeks decided by the council.  Lets try to do the work quickly, and if we 
> cannot then fine we can ask for an extension.  Also please, lets not 
> associate working quickly and efficiently with shoddiness.  
> Finally, I think the deadline has a point.  I have been informed, perhaps it 
> is not true, that this PDP is seen as gating DAGv4.  I hope that is not true, 
> but if it is, it really gives this deadline a real purpose.
> a.
> On 9 Feb 2010, at 02:13, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I am unable to make tomorrow's call at the scheduled time of 18:00 UTC. 
>> Would it be OK with the group to bring the call forward by just one hour, to 
>> 17:00 UTC? That would enable me to be on the call and would be much 
>> appreciated.
>> Thanks,
>> Stéphane

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy