RE: [gtld-council] Regarding public comment on initial report for PDP-Dec05 - new gTLDs

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

It is important to update the other SOs, especially the GAC on the work in
progress, even if not the detail. They need time to develop their plans to
interact with us, and springing an interim report on them, without proper
longer notice will on be helpful. That means that we need to brief on the
process, progress and proposed timelines. As the Council. We can discuss how
to organize the Council's work for the future interactions with SOs and
advisory committees. Information that can be used to brief the SOs and the
ACs still needs to be part of this dialogue opportunity in Wellington,
especially with the GAC. We can develop a liaison statement to send to the
other SOs, with a brief status report. Liaison statements should come from
Council, of course.

 

 

 

Marilyn 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Maureen Cubberley
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 12:31 PM
To: Bruce Tonkin; gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Regarding public comment on initial report for
PDP-Dec05 - new gTLDs

 

Hello Bruce,

 

Consistent with yesterday's discussion, I agree with this approach.

 

Regards,

Maureen

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Bruce Tonkin <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  

To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 5:59 AM

Subject: [gtld-council] Regarding public comment on initial report for
PDP-Dec05 - new gTLDs

 

Hello All,

In terms of transparency and allowing ongoing public comment, I think it
is reasonable to publish draft Initial reports on the GNSO website, and
allow public comment on those drafts via the GNSO website.

In terms of engaging the wider community including SSAC, GAC, ccNSO, etc
I think we should wait until the Committee has worked through each of
the four terms of reference and has a complete draft policy (or
alternative drafts if there is no clear consensus) to present to the
community via the main ICANN website.   This will then carry the
official designation of "Initial Report".  In the interim it is probably
useful to just designate the draft Initial reports as Draftv1.0, Draft
v2.0 etc.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin