Re: [council] Singapore Agenda Item: New gTLDs, Subsequent Application Rounds

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hi James,

you bring up a good point.  what if a sub group went off and started compiling 
that list of objectives and obstacles?  

mikey


On Mar 18, 2014, at 7:45 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> I think we can acknowledge that the timeline for Round 2 is off target (by 
> years!), but see no harm I periodically revisiting this commitment, and 
> understanding what obstacles remain in front of it. Otherwise, we run the 
> risk that the next phase of the program is deferred indefinitely, in favor of 
> the hot topic du jour. 
> 
> Thank you--
> 
> J.
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On Mar 18, 2014, at 7:31, "Novoa, Osvaldo" <onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I agree with Mikey.
>> Best regards,
>> Osvaldo
>> 
>> El 18/03/2014, a las 08:28, "Mike O'Connor" 
>> <mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>> escribió:
>> 
>> hi all,
>> 
>> i’ll speak personally, i haven’t checked with the constituency on this.  i 
>> would go a notch further than Jonathan — this item seems premature.  partly 
>> because of external events, partly because the rollout *is* taking longer 
>> than the framers of the Applicant Guidebook envisaged.  i’m not ruling it 
>> out, but my immediate reaction is quite muted.
>> 
>> mikey
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 18, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Jonathan Robinson 
>> <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks Bret,
>> 
>> I think this item may have got eclipsed by all of the other activity on 
>> Friday and over the weekend.
>> 
>> In any case, the point is noted and currently I think we can aim to fit this 
>> into the weekend sessions.
>> 
>> The draft agenda for Wednesday is looking full-ish for a two hour meeting 
>> but I am open to persuasion as to whether we discuss this on Wed.
>> 
>> Jonathan
>> 
>> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bret@xxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: 14 March 2014 15:39
>> To: Council
>> Subject: [council] Singapore Agenda Item: New gTLDs, Subsequent Application 
>> Rounds
>> 
>> Dear Councillors,
>> 
>> I would like to propose that we add some time on our Singapore agenda for 
>> discussing next steps in preparation for Round 2 of the new gTLD launch. As 
>> you may know, in the Applicant Guidebook, ICANN wrote the following about 
>> subsequent new gTLD rounds:
>> 
>> 1.1.6 Subsequent Application Rounds
>> 
>> ICANN’s goal is to launch subsequent gTLD application
>> rounds as quickly as possible. The exact timing will be
>> based on experiences gained and changes required after
>> this round is completed. The goal is for the next application
>> round to begin within one year of the close of the
>> application submission period for the initial round.
>> 
>> ICANN has committed to reviewing the effects of the New
>> gTLD Program on the operations of the root zone system
>> after the first application round, and will defer the
>> delegations in a second application round until it is
>> determined that the delegations resulting from the first
>> round did not jeopardize root zone system security or
>> stability.
>> 
>> It is the policy of ICANN that there be subsequent
>> application rounds, and that a systemized manner of
>> applying for gTLDs be developed in the long term.
>> 
>> The "the close of the application submission period for the initial round” 
>> was May, 2012, so the goal for the launch of Round 2 has already been 
>> missed, by a material amount of time. I think we all would agree that many 
>> aspects of the program, from the application process to the review and 
>> implementation, should be reviewed and revisited.
>> 
>> Let’s spend some time discussing “subsequent application rounds" and see if 
>> we can come to a shared understanding of what the proper next steps would 
>> be, including the role of the Council and the GNSO in the review process.
>> 
>> I’m looking forward to seeing everyone in Singapore.
>> 
>>      Bret
>> 
>> --
>> Bret Fausett, Esq. • General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc.
>> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 • Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536
>> 310-496-5755 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • 
>> bret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> — — — — —
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Bret Fausett, Esq. • General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc.
>> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 • Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536
>> 310-496-5755 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • bret@xxxxxxxx<mailto:bret@xxxxxxxx>
>> — — — — —
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: 
>> www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, 
>> Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido 
>> únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser 
>> confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al 
>> remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el 
>> e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está 
>> prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por 
>> cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del 
>> mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier 
>> comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de 
>> Seguridad de la Información
>> 
>> 
>> This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for 
>> the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender 
>> immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached 
>> files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity 
>> that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not 
>> responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information 
>> Security Policy.
>> 
> 


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP 
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)