ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [council] Kurt Question

  • To: "adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Kurt Question
  • From: Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:00:14 -0700
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: en-US
  • Cc: "Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: ActnFL4vVTwUloZWQS2Cm0s9w8cpWADPJR+wAEyYooAA5SEmhA==
  • Thread-topic: [council] Kurt Question

Hi Adrian:

There is a Board meeting on the 28th with new gTLDs as an agenda item, and 
right around that time, maybe a week later, the work on the Guidebook will be 
wrapped. Those two events will indicate both a Board and staff intent on 
whether to propose the Guidebook version as final. 

Hope this is helpful. 


----- Original Message -----
From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Kurt Pritz
Cc: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'Council GNSO' 
Sent: Fri Oct 15 14:44:35 2010
Subject: RE: [council] Kurt Question


Just following up on the below.


Adrian Kinderis
Chief Executive Officer
AusRegistry International Pty Ltd
Level 8, 10 Queens Road
Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004
Ph: +61 3 9866 3710
Fax: +61 3 9866 1970
Email: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.ausregistry.com

- Follow AusRegistry International on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ausregistryint 

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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Kinderis 
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 8:15 AM
To: Kurt Pritz
Cc: Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] Kurt Question


Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Your budget analogy is a good one. I understand that, like the budget, comment 
from the Community could be accepted and considered all the way up the Board 

So, with that in mind are you able to say whether the staff will be putting 
forward to the Board a "Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook" prior to the 
December ICANN Meeting?

With respect to your idea on the review of comments being limited to certain 
areas. I like the idea in principle and would be supportive of it. However, as 
we have seen in the past, no area is off limits to certain community and even 
those that we considered "locked away" some time ago seem to be reopened at 
their whim. It may be difficult to roll this out.

An answer to the above would be appreciated. 

Adrian Kinderis

-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt Pritz [mailto:kurt.pritz@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Saturday, 9 October 2010 5:15 AM
To: Adrian Kinderis
Cc: Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Kurt Question

Hi Adrian:

Evidently, when the subject line includes the word "Kurt, " the email is 
labelled as junk. I'm not sure what that means.

Bruce is right, of course. The parallel I would draw is with the ICANN budget. 
ICANN posts a "Proposed Final Budget" prior to the June ICANN meeting. There is 
comment before and during the meeting that the Board considers. Similarly, with 
new gTLDs,  ICANN could publish a proposed final Guidebook. When proposed, the 
Board could decide to approve the Guidebook as approved, or to approve it with 
certain tweaks, or to have more extensive analysis again.

As you know, there has been comment and analysis on many, many aspects of the 
Guidebook. All the comments to date have been addressed, although not always in 
the way the commenters request. Given the diversity of interests, I think that 
is impossible. Given  the depth of analysis to date and the most recent set of 
Board resolutions, perhaps review of comments in this next version of the 
Guidebook be limited in some way to changes in the Guidebook or new topics.

What do you think?


On Oct 7, 2010, at 10:52 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:

> Thanks Bruce. Very firm. I like it.
> However, it is all in how you look at it.
> The staff can certainly put something forward that they may consider "final" 
> and yes the Board may not approve it. However, the staff could still have 
> thought that they were "final".
> My question was to Kurt, and therefore staff, in that, does he believe that 
> the next version will be the one they expect the Board to sign off on or will 
> it be sent back for public comment.
> A legitimate question given staff's history of announcing that they expect 
> future drafts every time they have released one.
> A response would be appreciated.
> Adrian Kinderis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 3:50 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] Kurt Question
> Hello Adrian,
>>> Does that mean there will be others and the next won't be "final"?
> It will be final when the Board approves it.  Until then it is always a
> draft.
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin

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