RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs

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

I confess that I am one of those who has not read all the hundreds of comments.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 9:34 AM
> To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs
> 
> 
> I am not making the request on behalf of the constituency and 
> I am not making it because the IPC needs more time to study it.  
> 
> I am making the request because the Council has been 
> criticized in the past for ignoring public comment.  I 
> believe that criticism is generally well-founded and that it 
> would be irresponsible to vote until all Councilors who 
> intend to read all of the public comment have done so.  I 
> doubt that I am the only Councilor who has not in the past 
> two days read the hundreds of pages of public comment.
> 
> Appropriate motions will follow soon.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:35 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As I mentioned in an earlier note, it has become a practice 
> in the council that any constituency can request that a vote 
> be postponed one  
> meeting if they need more time to study it within the constituency.   
> Generally, I cannot think of an exception, we have honored 
> these requests.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 18 Dec 2008, at 14:28, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> 
> > 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.ht
> >>> m#
> >>>>> _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.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
>