<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi<div><br><div><div>On Jul 16, 2010, at 10:26 AM, <<a href="mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de">KnobenW@telekom.de</a>> <<a href="mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de">KnobenW@telekom.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div lang="EN-US" vlink="purple" link="blue"><div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span class="088410608-16072010">We have a very uncomfortable situation:</span></font></div><div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span class="088410608-16072010"></span></font> </div><div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span class="088410608-16072010">- applications have to be accepted until 29 July (2 weeks extension) - to whatever SO/AC they are related. That's what yestarday's announcement update says. And any candidate can rely on this since it was community wide published.</span></font></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div>I agree with Wolf. While I understand why Chuck's proposed approach might have seemed like a way out of the timing bind, it doesn't work. People make decisions based on official ICANN pronouncements, and I know of at least one person who's preparing to apply but saw the message saying there's two more weeks and hence decided not to rush in his app yesterday. There may be others in the same boat. I don't think we can now pull the rug out from under them and say, well ICANN says you have time, but the GNSO Council says you don't. Moreover, the Council didn't discuss this and come to a decision, and I'm not clear on whether it'd be within our remit to override ICANN's announcement in the first place…?</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div lang="EN-US" vlink="purple" link="blue"><div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span class="088410608-16072010">- I assume this happened in accordance with the selectors since they're the masters of the overall process.</span></font></div><div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span class="088410608-16072010"></span></font> </div><div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span class="088410608-16072010">My personal opinion is that therefore the selectors should take the burden of this confusion and shift the announcement of the RT members. 1 week shift is a minimum, 2 weeks would be satisfactory.</span></font></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This seems preferable, but if they cannot or will not, the other solution would be for SG's to take less than 21 days to agree amongst themselves on endorsements from the rather small applicant pools. In any event, applicants from SGs that do not need this long should not be penalized by changes based on that time frame.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div><div><br></div></div></div></body></html>