[council] Revised Motion for Council Meeting on Wednesday

[Reed, Daniel A]

I think this is a good replacement

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 4:51 AM
To: 'Marika Konings'; 'Bret Fausett'
Cc: 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: RE: [council] Revised Motion for Council Meeting on Wednesday

Thanks Marika,

I hereby propose “Discussion Group” in place of “open Committee” as a friendly amendment to Motion 2.

Jonathan

From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
Sent: 24 June 2014 19:43
To: Bret Fausett
Cc: GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] Revised Motion for Council Meeting on Wednesday

I think we have also used the term 'discussion group' in the past (as an open group to flesh out certain topics which may result in a document or at a minimum feedback on possible next steps to the Council which could include the formation of a DT or WG as a next step). Maybe that conveys the objective of this group?

Best regards,

Marika

On 24 jun. 2014, at 19:15, "Bret Fausett" <bret at nic.sexy<mailto:bret at nic.sexy>> wrote:
What works best, Marika? My thought here is that the output of this “open committee,” or whatever we decide to call it, will be a set of neutrally worded issues that we can send to you for the preparation of issue reports. We have work to do in identifying the policy issues (as separate from suggestions for operational improvements) and then grouping those policy issues into common areas where perhaps they could become part of the same issue report.

I typically think of a “drafting committee” as a committee charged with the preparation of a specific thing. Since we do not have a specific thing identified here — our work will be to discover together the things that the Council may want to consider for future policy development — this may be more like a working group. At the same time, most working groups involve a fair amount of advocacy for a specific outcome. I think that sort of participation is premature. This first step is really issue identification, and the advocacy, if any, should come later, at the PDP stage.

Against that background, what works best here? Thank you for the question, and my apologies for not being more precise in my wording.

--
Bret Fausett, Esq. • General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc.
— — — — —


On Jun 24, 2014, at 6:45 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>> wrote:

Dear Bret,

Following some conversations today during the preparatory meeting for the Council meeting tomorrow, would it be possible for you to provide some further details around the concept of 'open committee'? The Council currently uses drafting teams and working groups as mechanisms to conduct work and it is clearly understood how those group operate as well as expected deliverables. Provided the motion is adopted, staff would need some additional guidance to develop a call for volunteers that aligns with the expectations of the Council (or alternatively you may want to consider using one of the existing terms?).

Best regards,

Marika

From: Bret Fausett <bret at nic.sexy<mailto:bret at nic.sexy>>
Date: Tuesday 24 June 2014 12:38
To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: [council] Revised Motion for Council Meeting on Wednesday

Here is a new version of the motion we discussed that makes two changes from the previous version: (a) it adopts Avri’s helpful suggestion that we change “subsequent application rounds” to “subsequent application procedures”, and I have made this change in both Section 1 and 2 of the “Resolved"; and (b) it changes the committee created in Section 1 from a Committee of the Council to a new “open committee”. Since this is just a committee to identify issues appropriate for an issues report, I thought it important to avoid calling it a working group, and I have had multiple expressions of interest in participating from outside the Council, so I thought it would be appropriate to keep the committee open.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this, and I look forward to the discussion tomorrow.

Glen, can you please add this version to the Council motion page?

       Bret


— START MOTION —

Whereas, in 2005, this Council of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) began a policy development process to consider the introduction of new gTLDs, which resulted in the creation of certain policy recommendations for the launch of a new gTLD application process; and,

Whereas, in September 2007, this Council adopted the policy recommendations from the GNSO policy development process and forwarded them to the ICANN Board of Directors; and,

Whereas, in June 2008, the ICANN Board adopted the GNSO's policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs and directed staff to develop an implementation plan for a new gTLD introduction process; and

Whereas, in September 2009, ICANN and the U.S. National Telecommunications Information Administration entered into an Affirmation of Commitments (“AOC”) in which ICANN committed to organize a review of certain aspects of the introduction and expansion of gTLDs (AOC, at Section 9.3); and,

Whereas, in its April, 2011 Communique, ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (“GAC”) asked (at p.6) for a "comprehensive post-launch independent review of the [Trademark] Clearinghouse [to] be conducted one year after the launch of the 75th new gTLD in the round;” and,

Whereas, in June 2011, the ICANN Board approved an Application Guidebook ("AGB") for new gTLDs and authorized the launch of the New gTLD Program; and,

Whereas, the AGB provided that it was intended to govern "the first round of what is to be an ongoing process for the introduction of new TLDs" (Application, Module 2); and,

Whereas, Section 1.1.6 of the AGB ("Subsequent Application Rounds") provided that "ICANN’s goal [was] to launch subsequent gTLD application rounds as quickly as possible" and promised to base the timing of subsequent rounds on "experiences gained and changes required after this round is completed" with a "goal...for the next application round to begin within one year of the close of the application submission period for the initial round.;" and

Whereas, the first round application submission period closed in June, 2012; and,

Whereas, the Council believes that it has a continuing interest and role to play in evaluating the experiences of the first round and proposing policy recommendations, if necessary, for changes to subsequent rounds;

Now therefore, it is resolved:

1. The GNSO Council creates a new open committee to discuss the experiences gained by the first round of new gTLD applications and identify subjects for future issue reports, if any, that might lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent application procedures; and,

2. ICANN invites the New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board to provide input into the GNSO Council discussion to identify areas that it believes may be appropriate for discussion for an evaluation of the current gTLD application round and/or for possible adjustments for subsequent application procedures; and,

3. The GNSO Council requests a status report from ICANN Staff on the current progress of (a) the New gTLD program generally; (b) ICANN's anticipated timeline and work plan for the review specified in Section 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments; (c) ICANN's work to date on any evaluation of the first round; (d) the work to date on the post-launch independent review of the Trademark Clearinghouse; and (e) ICANN's current projection for a timetable for subsequent rounds.

— END MOTION —

--
Bret Fausett, Esq. • General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc.
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 • Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536
310-496-5755 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • bret at uniregistry.com<mailto:bret at uniregistry.com>
— — — — —



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20140625/b39339ec/attachment.html>