RE: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

        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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Anthony Harris
        Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 1:01 PM
        To: Stéphane Van Gelder; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; '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@xxxxxxxxx> 
 
                To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; 'Council GNSO' 
<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  
                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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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.