ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs

  • To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs
  • From: "Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:09:11 -0300
  • Cc: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <C5700E9E.29CF%stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I agree with Stephane, it should
be voted on. The process should
at least be kept on schedule.

Tony Harris

----- Original Message ----- From: "Stéphane Van Gelder" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx> To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>; "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>
Cc: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs



I have seen just as many comments calling for the process to be, if not
accelerated, at least kept on schedule.

This motion seeks to clarify something which was a part of the initial GNSO
recommendations for the new TLD program.

I think it is a useful motion and would rather voting on it not be deferred.

Thanks,

Stéphane Van Gelder


Le 17/12/08 22:50, « Rosette, Kristina » <krosette@xxxxxxx> a écrit :

The overall effect of the motion is to hasten the opening of the application round. Many of the comments I've read thus far (starting with the most recent and working backwards) have expressed concern about the current timetable -
let alone an expedited one.

K

-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:47 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina; St?phane Van Gelder; Avri Doria
Cc: Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs

Kristina,

How would public comments affect the issues in this motion? Regardless of the comments, we still have the possibility of a gap between the implementation of
fast track IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:30 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; St?phane Van Gelder; Avri Doria
Cc: Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs

Given the volume of public comment, I suggest that we defer voting on
this motion until all GNSO Councilors who intend to read the public
comments have done so.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:21 PM
To: St?phane Van Gelder; Avri Doria
Cc: Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs


As I said before, I accept Stephane's amendment as a friendly
amendment.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of St?phane
Van Gelder
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:53 PM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs
Importance: High


I still see the same text on the wiki.

This is the text with my friendly amendment that I had on record:

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#
_Toc4379
8015  )

* 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       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.

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.















<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>