Private -- RE: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION

[Mike Rodenbaugh]

Hi Tony and Stephane,

 

I don’t have much care either way on this, am only trying to eliminate some
language that could be picked upon by many, and is not necessary to the
motion.

 

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 10:01 AM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder; icann at rodenbaugh.com; 'Council GNSO'
Subject: Re: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION

 

I fully agree with Stephane, having read all the

comments I disagree that comments to the

contrary are overwhelming, there are simply

repeated expressions from brand interests

complaining about the introduction of new 

TLDs. I thought we were past that discussion

after three years of Council work on this

new round?

 

Tony Harris

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Stéphane <mailto:stephane.vangelder at indom.com>  Van Gelder 

To: icann at rodenbaugh.com ; 'Council <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>  GNSO' 

Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 2:51 PM

Subject: Re: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION

 

Mike,

May I suggest that the GNSO’s 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, “The 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.” (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#_Toc43
798015 ) 
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 ‘Communications Period’. 
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/acde2ebf/attachment.html>