RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs

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

I support a vote as well but, if more time is given before we vote: 1) it would 
be helpful to get a sense today where we are (e.g., straw poll); 2) we should 
vote no later than our 8 January meeting; 3)in the meantime it would be very 
helpful for the GNSO to communicate to the Staff and more importantly to the 
Board that we strongly believe the following two things.  First, neither the 
New gTLD or ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs in the root 
before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree.  Second, fast track 
IDN ccTLDs should not be entered into the root if they do not have an 
enforceable commitment to do the following that gTLDs must go i) follow minimal 
security and stability requirements, IDN Guidelines and IDN standards; ii) pay 
ICANN fees sufficient to ensure that IDN ccTLDs are fully self-funding and are 
not cross-subsidized by other ICANN activities. 

Regarding ii) above, please note the following statement contained in the first 
bullet in the "Summary of Key Points in This Paper" section of the Explanatory 
Memorandum for New gTLD Applicant Guidebook Module 1 titled "Cost 
Considerations of the New gTLD Program": "The new gTLD implementation should be 
fully self-funding (costs should not exceed fees; existing ICANN activities 
regarding technical coordination of names, numbers and other identifiers should 
not cross-subsidize this new program)."  See 
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/cost-considerations-23oct08-en.pdf.

Would those who do not want to vote today on my original motion with the 
friendly amendment from Stephane be willing to vote on a motion like the 
following instead?

"Whereas both the GNSO and ccNSO are anticipating implementation of processes 
to introduce IDN TLDs in 2009, resolve 1) the GNSO Council strongly believes 
that neither the New gTLD or ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs 
in the root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree, and 2) 
fast track IDN ccTLDs should not be entered into the root if they do not have 
an enforceable commitment to do the following as gTLDs must do: i) follow 
minimal security and stability requirements, IDN Guidelines and IDN standards; 
ii) pay ICANN fees sufficient to ensure that IDN ccTLDs are fully self-funding 
and are not cross-subsidized by other ICANN activities."

I understand that we haven't had 7 days notice for this motion but I believe 
that it is perfectly consistent with positions that we as a Council have 
approved and communicated before.

Chuck



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Harris [mailto:harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 9:09 AM
> To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Rosette, Kristina; Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria
> Cc: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs
> 
> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> > 
> 
>