[council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION

[Stéphane Van Gelder]

Mike,

May I suggest that the GNSO¹s position should be to request for the planned
implementation agenda to be kept on track, which is exactly what that
sentence says?

There are also a lot of comments from the community strongly requesting that
no further time be lost or, indeed, that the process be sped up.

As the new TLD program stems from the GNSO, it would not seem out of place
for the GNSO to strive towards a timely implementation of this program.

Thanks,

Stéphane Van Gelder


Le 08/01/09 18:39, « Mike Rodenbaugh » <icann at rodenbaugh.com> a écrit :

> Chuck,
>  
> Would you consider it a friendly amendment to remove this language, given the
> overwhelming public comment to the contrary?
>  
> Considerable delays have been incurred in the implementation of new gTLDs and
> the GNSO wishes to minimize any further delays.
>  
> The BC probably cannot support this motion anyway, but if it passes it would
> be more palatable to the community without this potentially inflammatory
> language.
>  
> Thanks,
> Mike
>  
> 
> 
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
> Behalf Of Anthony Harris
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:15 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION
>  
> 
> I would like to second this motion as presented
> 
> by Chuck Gomes.
> 
>  
> 
> Tony Harris
> 
>  
> 
>  
> Motions on gTLD Implementation
> Motion 1 (tabled until 8 January meeting)
> Made by Chuck Gomes
> 
> Seconded by:
> 
> Whereas:
> 
> Implementation Guideline E states, ³The application submission date will be at
> least four months after the issue of the Request for Proposal and ICANN will
> promote the opening of the application round.² (See Final Report, Part A,
> Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains, dated 8 August 2007 at
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm#_Toc4379
> 8015 ) 
> The intent of the GNSO with regard to Guideline E was to attempt to ensure
> that all potential applicants, including those that have not been active in
> recent ICANN activities regarding the introduction of new gTLDs, would be
> informed of the process and have reasonable time to prepare a proposal if they
> so desire. 
> The minimum 4-month period for promoting the opening of the application round
> is commonly referred to as the ŒCommunications Period¹.
> Considerable delays have been incurred in the implementation of new gTLDs and
> the GNSO wishes to minimize any further delays.
> It appears evident that a second Draft Applicant Guidebook (RFP) will be
> posted at some time after the end of the two 45-day public comment periods
> related to the initial version of the Guidebook (in English and other
> languages). 
> Resolve:
> 
> The GNSO Council changes Implementation Guideline E to the following: * Best
> efforts will be made to ensure that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is
> posted for public comment at least 14 days before the first international
> meeting of 2009, to be held in Mexico from March 1 to March 6. * ICANN will
> initiate the Communications Period at the same time that the second Draft
> Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment. * The opening of the initial
> application round will occur no earlier than four (4) months after the start
> of the Communications Period and no earlier than 30 days after the posting of
> the final Applicant Guidebook (RFP). * As applicable, promotions for the
> opening of the initial application round will include: * Announcement about
> the public comment period following the posting of the second Draft Applicant
> Guidebook (RFP) * Information about the steps that will follow the comment
> period including approval and posting of the final Applicant
> 
> Guidebook (RFP) * Estimates of when the initial application round will begin.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20090108/32f917a5/attachment.html>