RE: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It seems to me that fixing the language is very doable.  I would also be open 
to adjusting some language that recognizes that it is understood that the 2nd 
draft will involve considerable effort in responding to the many constructive 
comments that have been submitted.  My intent is not to short circuit the time 
needed to make sure that that the final product is as good as possible.  At the 
same time I do believe that the orginal goals with regard to the communication 
period can be achieved with the changes this motion suggests or some similar 
version of them.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
        Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 1:35 PM
        To: Council GNSO
        Subject: RE: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION
        
        

                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.