[council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION

[Gomes, Chuck]

Mike,
 
I think some flexibility is possible in this regard, but I think it is a
fact to state that 'Considerable delays have been incurred in the
implementation of new gTLDs'; I wouldn't have a lot of heartburn if
people don't want to admit that in the motion.
 
Chuck


________________________________

	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
	Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 12:39 PM
	To: 'Council GNSO'
	Subject: RE: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION
	
	

	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#_T
oc43798015 ) 
	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/ccd14c99/attachment.html>