Re: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry for saying this but it feels like we¹re going around in circles here.

Anthony¹s point about us getting past certain issues after 3 years of work
seems extremely pertinent to me.

The new TLD program was presented to the Board by the GNSO Council. Surely
the Council can appear united when working to see it implemented, can it
not?

Mike just sent an email explaining why he proposed that friendly amendment.
What he says makes sense to me. If the wording might offend, then maybe we
are better off without it in the motion. The important thing is to get the
motion passed IMO.

Thanks,

Stéphane


Le 08/01/09 19:34, « Rosette, Kristina » <krosette@xxxxxxx> a écrit :

>>  
>> 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 GNSO¹s 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, ³The 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.² (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#_Toc4
>>>> 3798015  ) 
>>>> 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 Period¹.
>>>> 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.  
>>>> 
>>>>