Re: [gtld-council] [Fwd: Comments re. New gTLD PDP Call Today]

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I apologize for missing the call. I believe all are aware of the circumstances. 

I raise to the Council /TF a concern that does not appear but may have been 
hightlighted in discussion. The GAC advised the Council and BD of its interest 
in advising on policy re gTLDs in its communique. 

We are required to. Seek input from relevant SOs and advisory groups, and we 
sld discuss this process in some detail in Marrakech. 
We have a session with the GAC on Sunday and that will be a start. However, I 
am not comfortable that we have also sought advise of the SSAC or of the CCNSO. 
At a minimum, we should discuss a form of outreach to both by TF. 

As to timing, ensuring in particular consultation with GAC will need attention 
and may require some willingness on our part to do inter-sessional conference 
call interaction with the GAC. 


Regards,
Marilyn Cade


-----Original Message-----
From: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:29:39 
To:gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gtld-council] [Fwd: Comments re. New gTLD PDP Call Today]


Subject:        Comments re. New gTLD PDP Call Today
Date:   Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:52:58 -0400
From:   Gomes, Chuck


As I assume you know, I did not learn of today's call until after it had
ended so I would like to submit a few comments after the fact if that is
okay.

_Term of Reference 2:  Recommendations, Item 4_

     * Regarding Bruce's request during the call for alternative language
       for "sound business plan", I have encouraged Ray Fassett to send a
       suggestion he made on an email exchange he and I had earlier this
       week.

_Term of Reference 2:  Recommendations, Item_ 8

     * This item refers to, ". . . a pre-published set of criteria
       against which applications would be evaluated."  This is probably
       a minor point because 'objectivity' is mentioned several other
       places in the report, but it seems to me that it might be good to
       insert the words "objective, measurable" in front of "criteria".

_Term of Reference 3:  Recommendations, item 6_

     * This item concludes, ". . . It was clear that comparative
       evaluations were still a necessary part of any new TLD application
       process particularly where there were limited resources to deal
       with any application round and where applicants had proposed
       similar strings with similar purposes for similar communities of
       interest."  I don't remember this; is my memory bad?  Did the
       committee ever agree that 'comparative evaluations were still a
       necessary part of any new TLD application process'?
     * I think item 8 contains a more accurate conclusion of what
       happened as Bruce I think adequately clarified during the call:
       "Where there was contention for either the same string or limited
       staff resources to process applications, there were two main
       alternatives proposed which each had roughly equal support.  These
       were:

         -  Objective (auction or lottery)
         -  Subjective (comparative evaluations of the applications to
identify the best applications)."

_Next Steps, Item 4_

     * This item reads, "Between the Marrakech meeting and the December
       meeting in Brazil, the GNSO Council will complete its Initial
       Report and release it for a formal Public Comment Period."  We
       definitely did discuss schedule in Brussels, but the wording here
       seems to leave the door open for the final report to be submitted
       for public comment as late as December 2006 and I don't think that
       was what was intended.  I would suggest the wording be changed to
       something like the following: "As soon as possible after the
       Marrakech meeting and the end of the public comment period on the
       final version of the Initial Report, the ICANN Staff Manager will
       prepare the Final Report (PDP step 9.c), the GNSO Council will
       deliberate on the Final Report (PDP step 10), and the Staff
       Manager will prepare the Board Report (PDP step 11) so as to allow
       sufficient time for the Board to take action not later than
       December 2005."
     * If I properly understood the discussion at the end of today's
       call, think Bruce may have said that a decision regarding schedule
       may be made in the Council meeting in Marrakech so my point may be
       clarified at that time.  But I do believe that it might be good to
       modify the language in the initial report that is posted before
       Marrakech.

_Application Fees_

     * I thought the discussion on today's call regarding application
       fees was useful and would like to add a thought and ask a question
       in that regard.
     * Historically, I believe that the purpose of application fees has
       been to cover ICANN's costs of managing the process of introducing
       new gTLDs.
     * Depending on how they are implemented, I am not necessarily
       opposed to variable application fees but I think the following
       question needs to be answered if the fees are intended to cover
       ICANN's costs of managing the process: Should some applicants'
       fees be used to subsidize the fees of other applicants?

_GNSO Public Forum_

     * Bruce shared that he planned to provide a fairly brief summary of
       the Initial Report.
     * He may have already intended this but it wasn't clear to me on the
       call: I think, in anticipation of the open mike time, that it
       would be important for him to specifically highlight the questions
       for which public comment is requested.
     * How much time is going to be scheduled for the GNSO Public Forum?
       My comments below explain why I ask.

At least three and possibly four of the five topics included in the
agenda for the GNSO Public Forum in Marrakech by Bruce could easily take
an hour or more by themselves, especially considering that it is very
important to allow plenty of time for public comment:

(1) Initial report on new gTLD policy

         - This topic itself demands lots of input from the audience to
answer the questions raised in the Initial Report.  Considering the
short time frame to finish this PDP and considering the fact that this
is the only public meeting until December, it seems like this topic
could easily take 1.5 to 2 hours by itself.

(2) Update on WHOIS policy work

         - The agreed to definition of the purpose of Whois has created
considerable stir among law enforcement and IP interests and has in turn
created increased interest by some governments that will undoubtedly
spill over into the GAC.  So it seems likely that this topic will
generate considerable interest.

(3) Update on policy work on contractual conditions for existing gTLDs

         - It appears that this PDP will probably not be very far along
and that fact may result in less public discussion on this topic but
that could change.

(4) Update on Policy work on Internationalized Domain Names

         - We all know the criticalness and interest in this topic.

(5) Any update on GNSO Review

         - This may be the only topic that requires minimal time and that
isn't even guaranteed depending on the recommendations that come out of
the review.

My point it this: the usual 2 or 3 hours scheduled for the GNSO Public
Forum will be woefully inadequate this time around.  One solution of
course is to allow a longer block of time; this in my opinion would be
the best approach if possible.  If that is not possible then other
possible approaches could be: to incorporate the public comment period
regarding IDNs in the IDN workshop; to incorporate the public comment
period regarding the GNSO Review into the ICANN Public Forum; to hold a
separate public comment session regarding the report on new gTLD
policy.  Because the ICANN Public Forum may duplicate some the topics in
the GNSO Public Forum, combining discussion of some of the topics into
just one of the forums may work.

I personally think it would be very unfortunate if too little time is
allowed for public input on these topics, especially (1), (2) and (4).

Please feel free to forward these comments to the Dec05 PDP list if
there is one or to the Council list.

-------------------------------------------------------
***Chuck Gomes*
VeriSign Information Services
_cgomes@verisign.com_ <mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

*****VeriSign*®--------------Where it all comes together.™


-- 
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org