[ALAC] [council] - Preliminary Issue Report - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures

[Holly Raiche]

My apologies again for not being there, but I support this message

Holly
On 26 Aug 2015, at 9:09 am, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:

> Dear ALAC members,
> 
> as per the consensus call please find my message to the GNSO Council mailing list below.
> Kind regards,
> 
> Olivier
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:	Re: [council] - Preliminary Issue Report - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
> Date:	Wed, 26 Aug 2015 00:42:01 +0200
> From:	Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> To:	Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>, council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> Dear Councillors,
> 
> this is to let you know that I have brought up the question on today's ALAC call and with 10 ALAC members present (quorum achieved) the Chair conducted a consensus call on the topic.
> 
> Due to the importance of the Topic, the ALAC would prefer a longer Public Comment that would respect the customary blackout periods before, during and after an ICANN meeting. 
> As the topic is of interest to many of ICANN's communities including end users, the ALAC would welcome being able to discuss the topic in Dublin - perhaps as a High Interest Community Topic, as part of the Public Forum or at some point on Constituency Day.
> The work process is likely to take years - from the ALAC's perspective, it would be imprudent to try to rush it through consultation phases.
> 
> Warm regards,
> 
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
> ALAC Liaison to the GNSO Council
> 
> On 18/08/2015 22:26, Steve Chan wrote:
>> Dear Councilors,
>> 
>> Staff is on track to be able to deliver the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures for public comment by the end of August, as discussed on the previous GNSO Council meeting. However, I wanted to note that during the meeting, the possibility of providing for an extended public comment period was also discussed, which would keep it open through the ICANN54 meeting. This topic is expected to be on the agenda for the next Council meeting, scheduled for 03 September and as such, it may make sense to delay the publication of the report by approximately 3 days to allow for discussion during the meeting and a decision to be made, to avoid confusion from possibly amending the comment close date. The impact appears to be minimal:
>> Publish 31 August -> 40 Day Public Comment -> Close 10 October (note that this is a Saturday)
>> Publish 3 September -> 40 Day Public Comment -> Close 13 October
>> Publish 3 September -> 60 Day (for instance) Public Comment -> Close 2 November  
>> Staff is leaning towards waiting the three days and immediately putting in the request to publish the Preliminary Issue Report after a decision is made, but wanted to be sure there were no strong objections to this approach.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Steven Chan
>> Sr. Policy Manager
>> 
>> ICANN
>> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
>> Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
>> steve.chan at icann.org
>> 
>> direct: +1.310.301.3886
>> mobile: +1.310.339.4410
>> tel: +1.310.301.5800
>> fax: +1.310.823.8649
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> 
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20150826/20ae2515/attachment.html>