[council] RE: Motion re. New gTLD Communications Period

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

Thanks for the clarification Adrian. 
 
I believe there are two key elements of Implementation Guideline E (IG E):

1.      
        The communications period must begin a minimum of four months before 
the application period starts.
2.      
        The communications period must begin after the Final RFP is posted.

 
I believe my motion is consistent with element 1 but changes element 2.  Your 
proposed amendment changes both elements and that is one reason why I am 
cautious about accepting it as a friendly amendment. If we completely change 
the recommendation, it seems like it would be better to have a separate vote to 
do so before voting on the amendment.  I could probably be convinced to accept 
your amendment to my motion as friendly if this was the only issue, but I have 
larger concerns with regard to the change your motion might have on the intent 
of IG E.
 
As I said in my previous message, I think the intent of the guideline was to 
make it possible for applicants who have not been aware of the process to still 
be able to participate.  In that regard, assuming we still support the original 
intent, we should ask ourselves whether the intent is reasonably satisfied with 
my motion and likewise whether it would be reasonably satisfied if your change 
to my motion was added.  I obviously believed that the answer was yes to my 
motion and I think you believe that the answer is yes if your amendment to my 
motion was made.  Both of us are concerned about impact on the timeline so lets 
look at that with these assumptions: 1) there will be a 30-day comment period 
after the 2nd Draft RFP is posted; 2) it will take Staff at least 30 days after 
the second comment period to finalize the RFP (this may be optimistic); 3) it 
will take at least 30 days for the Board to approve the Final RFP (this also 
may be optimistic especially considering the timing of Staff finalization of 
the Final RFP relative to the timing of Board meetings).
 
Assuming the best case scenario (30 days for 2nd comment period, 30 days for 
Staff to finalize the RFP, 30 days for Board approval):

*       
        My amendment without your change would save 90 days off of the timeline 
if IG E was implemented as is but the application period would still have to 
start 4 months after the start of the Communications Period and 30 days after 
the Final RFP posting.
*       
        My amendment modified with your change would still save just 90 days 
because the application period would still have to start 30 days after the 
Final RFP posting.

 
If the best case scenario doesn't apply ( i.e., one or more of the steps take 
more than 30 days), then we could save more than 90 days, maybe a lot more.  
That is where your amendment could reduce the timeline impact more than mine 
because the communications period could not exceed four months.  That could 
mean that the application period would have to start no later than four months 
after the posting of Draft RFP 2 whether the RFP was finalized and approved or 
not.  That might be a problem because it would definitely go against the intent 
of the IG E.  At a minimum, I strongly believe that the Final RFP must be 
approved before the application period starts.  I also personally believe that 
it is important for there to be some time after the Final RFP is posted before 
the application period starts; I picked 30 days.  As you know, in previous 
rounds, some parts of the RFP were not posted until after the application 
period started (e.g., the draft base agreement).  I think one thing that we 
should not compromise on is this: The Final RFP should be posted before the 
application period begins so that everyone has a complete picture of what they 
are facing and can develop risk models, business models, etc. that accommodate 
for all factors.
 
Conclusions: 1) I do not consider your presently proposed amendment friendly; 
2) it might be helpful if you redraft you amendment to my motion to focus on 
the time that Staff and the Board take on the three steps leading to approval 
of the final RFP.  For example, we could recommend any or all of the following: 
a) the 2nd comment period should not last more than 30 days; b) Staff should 
address public comments and finalize the RFP for Board consideration in at 
least 30 days; c) the Board should approve a Final RFP within 30 days of 
receiving Staff recommendation.  I am not sure the second two recommendations 
are realistic or that we have much control over them but we could at least 
recommend that best efforts be made.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 1:01 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO
        Subject: RE: Motion re. New gTLD Communications Period
        
        

        Thanks Chuck.

         

        I wasn't expecting you to name names nor lay blame and in doing so I 
think you missed my point.

         

        I do not think the amendment would be a material change at all. As you 
state; "The minimum 4-month period for promoting the opening of the application 
round is commonly referred to as the 'Communications Period'".

         

        A material change would be to disagree with this premise. That is, to 
disagree that a period of time is required "for promoting the opening of the 
application round", which I do not. The intent is good.

         

        That said, what I do disagree with is the length of time (as, in a way, 
are you with your original proposal). I am merely asking ICANN staff to receive 
advice, either internally or externally to ensure that a full 4 months is 
required given their budget and goals. I suspect not. If that is the case, 
allow the Communications Team to suggest a promotions period so long as it 
doesn't exceed 4 months.

         

        I trust this helps explain my point.

         

        If you do not consider the amendment friendly I shall look to propose 
my own.  

         

        Adrian Kinderis
        
        

        From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Sunday, 23 November 2008 1:43 AM
        To: Adrian Kinderis; Council GNSO
        Subject: RE: Motion re. New gTLD Communications Period

         

        Adrian,

         

        I think your amendment would be a material change to the intent of 
Implementation Guideline E.  

         

        I need to be careful about citing names because it was a long time ago, 
but I believe one of the proponents of the communications period was one of 
your Registrar Constituency colleagues: Werner Staub.  So I suggest you talk to 
him.  In fairness to Werner though, the rest of us thought that it was a 
reasonable thing to do.  And I still believe that the intent is good. But I 
believe that the intent can be accomplished with modifications like I included 
in my motion.

         

        Chuck 

                 

                
________________________________


                From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
                Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 9:59 PM
                To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO
                Subject: RE: Motion re. New gTLD Communications Period

                Thanks Chuck.

                 

                Whilst we have opened Pandora's box, let me peek in...

                 

                Why 4 months at all? Which Communications and Media expert 
within the GNSO Council suggested that 4 months would be an appropriate amount 
of time to run a Global Communications Campaign?

                 

                I would have thought we'd look to limit the maximum amount of 
time not dictate the amount of time required. The advice may be that only a 
month is required...? 

                 

                Can I suggest a friendly amendment?

                 

                Perhaps it could read as follows (changes marked up in red);

                 

                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:

                o       ICANN will initiate the Communications Period at the 
same time that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public 
comment.

                o       The opening of the initial application round will occur 
no earlier later 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).

                o    The actual duration of the Communications Period will be 
determined by ICANN staff and appropriate Media and Strategic Consultancy (but 
shall not exceed four (4) months). 

                o   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.

                 

                 

                Adrian Kinderis
                Managing Director

                AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
                Level 8, 10 Queens Road
                Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004
                Ph: +61 3 9866 3710
                Fax: +61 3 9866 1970
                Email: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
                Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com 
<http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/> 

                 

                The information contained in this communication is intended for 
the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally 
privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended 
recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on 
it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies 
from your system and notify us immediately.

                 

                From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
                Sent: Saturday, 22 November 2008 11:15 AM
                To: Council GNSO
                Subject: [council] Motion re. New gTLD Communications Period

                 

                I would like to make the following motion (also attached as a 
Word file) for consideration at our next Council meeting.

                 

                Chuck Gomes

                 

                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:

                o       ICANN will initiate the Communications Period at the 
same time that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public 
comment.

                o       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).

                o       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.