Re: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Re: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATIONI agree with Chuck

Tony Harris
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gomes, Chuck 
  To: Rosette, Kristina ; Council GNSO 
  Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 3:49 PM
  Subject: RE: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION


  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 
        To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; 'Council GNSO' 
        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.