RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tony, I don't disagree entirely with that either. But let's be honest,
most of the concern over delay comes from potential applicants and from
registrars, not from registrants as far as I can see. Registries and
Registrants have a legitimate vested interest in seeing things move
forward quickly, but Staff should not dismiss the concerns of others as
less important.

Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants
From: "Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, March 16, 2009 1:20 pm
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


I think the new gTLD process has already been
delayed successively for well over a year now,
and would personally support the Board/Staff
inclination to avoid overextending it much longer.

Obviously a quick and informed analysis of the
concerns from the IPC community needs to
be undertaken, with a view to giving reasonable
response to these in the next version of the guidebook.
The timeframe envisioned does not appear to be
too demanding in this respect.

The previous new gTLDs were rolled out with much
less numerous and detailed pre-requisites, albeit being
a sponsored round. I think it fair to state that their
introduction did not give rise to a "tsunami" of grave
and serious problems being unleashed over the
Internet stakeholders and users to date.

My vote of confidence to the ICANN Board and
Staff on their timeline. The Internet is about change
and innovation, this process is no less than that.

Tony Harris

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:51 PM
Subject: RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants


> 
> Sure. But my point is that we find more time is needed, then more time
> is needed. If a reasonable case can be made for more time it should not
> be seen as unilateral disregard for Board deadlines. It gets back to the
> whole question of ligitimacy and institutional confidence - if more time
> is truely needed it should be given.
> 
> Regardless of the what Board and Staff desires in regards to getting the
> new gTLD process rolled out, this really isn't "their" process, it's
> ours (all stakeholders). We need to be realistic about what a finite
> group of people can accomplish in a finite timeframe and what it takes
> to get the community behind what we do.
> 
> Tim 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants
> From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, March 16, 2009 11:57 am
> To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> Tim,
> 
> I do not believe it would be appropriate for the IPC to decide
> unilaterally to disregard the Board's deadlines. Perhaps you could
> direct your question to Rita and/or Bruce? 
> 
> K 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 12:22 PM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants
> 
> 
> Why are the deadlines given by the Board any more written in stone than
> those in the Bylaws? The latter have been missed on almost every PDP
> ever done. Doesn't the argument that it is more important for the work
> to be done right, have integrity, and instill confidence just as
> important here?
> 
> I agree that the IP and Business community shoul have their legitimate
> concerns addressed before the new gTLD process can move forward. But
> there is nothing to gain in the long term by a mad rush to an end game
> that doesn't work well or as expected.
> 
> Tim 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants
> From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, March 12, 2009 8:43 am
> To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> Unfortunately, extending the deadline is simply not possible given the
> deadlines provided by the Board in the resolution and the work that
> needs to be done. Moreover, a large number of people from almost every
> constituency and some of the ACs had already contacted IPC members about
> participating and had been provided similar information to that set
> forth below. I posted the message below in an effort to provide the
> information for dissemination to those who had not already contacted IPC
> members. As for the Board's intent, I believe the language of the
> resolution speaks for itself.
> 
> Kristina 
> 
> 
> 
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:21 AM
> To: Rosette, Kristina
> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Kristina, 
> 
> Thanks for this information, which I've just passed on to NCUC. 
> However, I would strongly suggest that we extend the deadline to Monday
> or Tuesday. Notification at 11pm on the 11th of a 13th noon deadline is
> a very unworkable turnaround time if we are serious about getting strong
> applicants and engagement from all constituencies, as the board intends.
> Some people might not be reading mail today or be able to determine so
> quickly whether the workload fits with their schedule etc.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Mar 11, 2009, at 11:00 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
> 
> All, 
> Because we've received a number of inquiries about nominations for IRT
> participants, we thought it would be helpful to provide the information
> below.
> Nominations for IRT participants should be sent to Steve Metalitz (IPC
> President), Ute, Cyril or me. Steve's email address is not on the
> Council page or the IPC home page so please contact me off-list if you
> would like it. 
> The nominations must include: 
> 1. The full name and contact information of the nominee (including the
> name of her/his employer and title); 
> 2. The ICANN Geographic Region(s) in which the nominee is a citizen and
> is a resident; 
> 3. Identification of the nominee's knowledge, experience, and expertise
> in the fields of trademark, consumer protection, or competition law, and
> the interplay of trademarks and the domain name system;
> 4. Identification of any financial ownership or senior
> management/leadership interest of the nominee in registries, registrars
> or other entities that are stakeholders or interested parties in ICANN
> or any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other
> arrangement; 
> 5. State if the nominee would be representing any other party or person
> through her/his IRT participation and, if so, identify that party or
> person; and
> 6. State if the nominee submitted public comments on the first draft of
> the DAG that provided proposed solutions to the trademark issues and, if
> so, attach a copy of those comments.
> We must receive all nominations not later than Friday, 13 March, at noon
> EDT. Because of the deadlines set forth by the Board in the resolution,
> it will be exceedingly difficult to consider any nominations submitted
> after that point. Also, based on very preliminary time lines, IRT
> participants should expect to spend at least 15 full business days
> (excluding travel time) in the next two months on the team's work.
> Kristina 
> 
> 
> 
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake 
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
> Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
> http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
> 
> ***********************************************************
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>