<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] RE: Motion re. New gTLD Communications Period
I would like to express support for the
motion as presented by Chuck with
Stephane's friendly amendment.
Tony Harris
----- Original Message -----
From: Gomes, Chuck
To: Adrian Kinderis ; Council GNSO
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 12:58 PM
Subject: [council] RE: Motion re. New gTLD Communications Period
Thanks for the clarification Adrian.
I believe there are two key elements of Implementation Guideline E (IG E):
1.. The communications period must begin a minimum of four months before
the application period starts.
2.. The communications period must begin after the Final RFP is posted.
I believe my motion is consistent with element 1 but changes element 2. Your
proposed amendment changes both elements and that is one reason why I am
cautious about accepting it as a friendly amendment. If we completely change
the recommendation, it seems like it would be better to have a separate vote to
do so before voting on the amendment. I could probably be convinced to accept
your amendment to my motion as friendly if this was the only issue, but I have
larger concerns with regard to the change your motion might have on the intent
of IG E.
As I said in my previous message, I think the intent of the guideline was to
make it possible for applicants who have not been aware of the process to still
be able to participate. In that regard, assuming we still support the original
intent, we should ask ourselves whether the intent is reasonably satisfied with
my motion and likewise whether it would be reasonably satisfied if your change
to my motion was added. I obviously believed that the answer was yes to my
motion and I think you believe that the answer is yes if your amendment to my
motion was made. Both of us are concerned about impact on the timeline so lets
look at that with these assumptions: 1) there will be a 30-day comment period
after the 2nd Draft RFP is posted; 2) it will take Staff at least 30 days after
the second comment period to finalize the RFP (this may be optimistic); 3) it
will take at least 30 days for the Board to approve the Final RFP (this also
may be optimistic especially considering the timing of Staff finalization of
the Final RFP relative to the timing of Board meetings).
Assuming the best case scenario (30 days for 2nd comment period, 30 days for
Staff to finalize the RFP, 30 days for Board approval):
a.. My amendment without your change would save 90 days off of the timeline
if IG E was implemented as is but the application period would still have to
start 4 months after the start of the Communications Period and 30 days after
the Final RFP posting.
b.. My amendment modified with your change would still save just 90 days
because the application period would still have to start 30 days after the
Final RFP posting.
If the best case scenario doesn't apply ( i.e., one or more of the steps take
more than 30 days), then we could save more than 90 days, maybe a lot more.
That is where your amendment could reduce the timeline impact more than mine
because the communications period could not exceed four months. That could
mean that the application period would have to start no later than four months
after the posting of Draft RFP 2 whether the RFP was finalized and approved or
not. That might be a problem because it would definitely go against the intent
of the IG E. At a minimum, I strongly believe that the Final RFP must be
approved before the application period starts. I also personally believe that
it is important for there to be some time after the Final RFP is posted before
the application period starts; I picked 30 days. As you know, in previous
rounds, some parts of the RFP were not posted until after the application
period started (e.g., the draft base agreement). I think one thing that we
should not compromise on is this: The Final RFP should be posted before the
application period begins so that everyone has a complete picture of what they
are facing and can develop risk models, business models, etc. that accommodate
for all factors.
Conclusions: 1) I do not consider your presently proposed amendment friendly;
2) it might be helpful if you redraft you amendment to my motion to focus on
the time that Staff and the Board take on the three steps leading to approval
of the final RFP. For example, we could recommend any or all of the following:
a) the 2nd comment period should not last more than 30 days; b) Staff should
address public comments and finalize the RFP for Board consideration in at
least 30 days; c) the Board should approve a Final RFP within 30 days of
receiving Staff recommendation. I am not sure the second two recommendations
are realistic or that we have much control over them but we could at least
recommend that best efforts be made.
Chuck
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 1:01 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO
Subject: RE: Motion re. New gTLD Communications Period
Thanks Chuck.
I wasn't expecting you to name names nor lay blame and in doing so I think
you missed my point.
I do not think the amendment would be a material change at all. As you
state; "The minimum 4-month period for promoting the opening of the application
round is commonly referred to as the 'Communications Period'".
A material change would be to disagree with this premise. That is, to
disagree that a period of time is required "for promoting the opening of the
application round", which I do not. The intent is good.
That said, what I do disagree with is the length of time (as, in a way, are
you with your original proposal). I am merely asking ICANN staff to receive
advice, either internally or externally to ensure that a full 4 months is
required given their budget and goals. I suspect not. If that is the case,
allow the Communications Team to suggest a promotions period so long as it
doesn't exceed 4 months.
I trust this helps explain my point.
If you do not consider the amendment friendly I shall look to propose my
own.
Adrian Kinderis
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, 23 November 2008 1:43 AM
To: Adrian Kinderis; Council GNSO
Subject: RE: Motion re. New gTLD Communications Period
Adrian,
I think your amendment would be a material change to the intent of
Implementation Guideline E.
I need to be careful about citing names because it was a long time ago, but
I believe one of the proponents of the communications period was one of your
Registrar Constituency colleagues: Werner Staub. So I suggest you talk to him.
In fairness to Werner though, the rest of us thought that it was a reasonable
thing to do. And I still believe that the intent is good. But I believe that
the intent can be accomplished with modifications like I included in my motion.
Chuck
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 9:59 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO
Subject: RE: Motion re. New gTLD Communications Period
Thanks Chuck.
Whilst we have opened Pandora's box, let me peek in...
Why 4 months at all? Which Communications and Media expert within the
GNSO Council suggested that 4 months would be an appropriate amount of time to
run a Global Communications Campaign?
I would have thought we'd look to limit the maximum amount of time not
dictate the amount of time required. The advice may be that only a month is
required...?
Can I suggest a friendly amendment?
Perhaps it could read as follows (changes marked up in red);
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
)
a.. 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.
b.. The minimum 4-month period for promoting the opening of the
application round is commonly referred to as the 'Communications Period'.
c.. Considerable delays have been incurred in the implementation of new
gTLDs and the GNSO wishes to minimize any further delays.
d.. 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:
o ICANN will initiate the Communications Period at the same time
that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment.
o The opening of the initial application round will occur no
earlier later 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).
o The actual duration of the Communications Period will be determined
by ICANN staff and appropriate Media and Strategic Consultancy (but shall not
exceed four (4) months).
o 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.
Adrian Kinderis
Managing Director
AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
Level 8, 10 Queens Road
Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004
Ph: +61 3 9866 3710
Fax: +61 3 9866 1970
Email: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com
The information contained in this communication is intended for the named
recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged
and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must
not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have
received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system
and notify us immediately.
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Saturday, 22 November 2008 11:15 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] Motion re. New gTLD Communications Period
I would like to make the following motion (also attached as a Word file)
for consideration at our next Council meeting.
Chuck Gomes
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
)
a.. 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.
b.. The minimum 4-month period for promoting the opening of the
application round is commonly referred to as the 'Communications Period'.
c.. Considerable delays have been incurred in the implementation of new
gTLDs and the GNSO wishes to minimize any further delays.
d.. 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:
o ICANN will initiate the Communications Period at the same time
that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment.
o 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).
o 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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|