[council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION

Thu Jan 8 18:49:37 UTC 2009

It seems to me that fixing the language is very doable.  I would also be open to adjusting some language that recognizes that it is understood that the 2nd draft will involve considerable effort in responding to the many constructive comments that have been submitted.  My intent is not to short circuit the time needed to make sure that that the final product is as good as possible.  At the same time I do believe that the orginal goals with regard to the communication period can be achieved with the changes this motion suggests or some similar version of them.

Chuck

________________________________

	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
	Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 1:35 PM
	To: Council GNSO
	Subject: RE: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION

		It would be accurate to say "[some/several/most] constituencies within the GNSO wish to minimize any further delays" or, depending on how it looks the vote will go "the GNSO Council wishes to minimize any further delays".  It is not, however, accurate to say "the GNSO wishes to minimize any further delays".  As long as certain constituencies or portions of constituencies believe that further implementation work is necessary and doing that work will result in delay, it's simply not possible to refer to the entire GNSO.

________________________________

		From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Harris
		Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 1:01 PM
		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 Van Gelder <mailto:stephane.vangelder at indom.com>  
			To: icann at rodenbaugh.com ; 'Council GNSO' <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>  
			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#_Toc43798015 ) 
				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/20090108/2e6204c7/attachment.html>