[council] Motion regarding New gTLDs

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

that is a really good question.

If we present this as an amendment on our recommendations, then I  
believe it would have to go to the Board.

If it was just a request from the GNSO council that the Staff consider  
this as a practical issue in the next revision, then it would be  
numbered one among many things where the plans deviated from the  
original GNSO recommendations and the Board would have to take it into  
account when approving the implementation plan.  Of course on this  
issue at least, the Staff would have the ability to show that this  
change was made on our request.

That is my first estimation on it.  Of course it is another issue  
where the advise of counsel could be helpful.  These days we are  
having so many questions like that it would really be good to have a  
member of the legal staff assigned to help us with these thorny issues.

On a practical manner, we have an incredibly full meeting that I am  
not sure to fit this issue in - not if we need any amount of  
discussion on it.

a.


On 17 Dec 2008, at 18:34, Tim Ruiz wrote:

>
> May sound strange coming from me since I supported this idea  
> initially,
> but after all the comments that have been submitted (still reading  
> them)
> and the criticisms that have been made, is it wise for us to try and
> hurry this up in any way?
>
> And a couple of procedural questions:
> 1) What is the threshold for Council approval?
> 2) Will the Board have to also approve this?
>
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
> Date: Wed, December 17, 2008 7:37 am
> To: "GNSO Council" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
> Avri,
>
> I just realized that the attached motion regarding the 4-month
> communication period that I submitted on 21 November has been left off
> the agenda for our Council meeting tomorrow.
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
>
>