Re: [council] Motion for London GNSO Meeting / New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds

[Bret Fausett <bret@xxxxxxxx>]

Thank you for this, John. I think we can include the AOC work in the motion, 
adding a reference to it in the Whereas clause and adding an action item in the 
Resolved section asking ICANN staff for an update on the status of the AOC 
review. I believe that the work that will take place for the AOC review will 
happen in parallel to whatever the Council decides to do, and if we do it 
right, each process will inform the other. Let me share some possible language 
with you by a separate email and we can discuss it more in the preparatory 
meetings this weekend. 

     BRet


On Jun 16, 2014, at 5:55 PM, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Bret,
> 
> The BC has been paying a lot of attention to "the next round."  I think the 
> Affirmation of Commitments already requires a review of the new gTLD program, 
> to begin by Jan 2015 and may lead you to modify your motion (without 
> impinging on its intent, I think).  The text is: 
>  
> 9.3 Promoting competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice: ICANN will 
> ensure that as it contemplates expanding the top-level domain space, the 
> various issues that are involved (including competition, consumer protection, 
> security, stability and resiliency, malicious abuse issues, sovereignty 
> concerns, and rights protection) will be adequately addressed prior to 
> implementation. If and when new gTLDs (whether in ASCII or other language 
> character sets) have been in operation for one year, ICANN will organize a 
> review that will examine
>  
>  the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted 
> competition, consumer trust and consumer choice,
>  
>  as well as effectiveness of 
> (a) the application and evaluation process, and 
> (b) safeguards put in place to mitigate issues involved in the introduction 
> or expansion.  
>  
> ICANN will organize a further review of its execution of the above 
> commitments two years after the first review, and then no less frequently 
> than every four years. The reviews will be performed by volunteer community 
> members and the review team will be constituted and published for public 
> comment, and will include the following (or their designated nominees): the 
> Chair of the GAC, the CEO of ICANN, representatives of the relevant Advisory 
> Committees and Supporting Organizations, and independent experts. Composition 
> of the review team will be agreed jointly by the Chair of the GAC (in 
> consultation with GAC members) and the CEO of ICANN. Resulting 
> recommendations of the reviews will be provided to the Board and posted for 
> public comment. The Board will take action within six months of receipt of 
> the recommendations.
> 
> Cheers,
>  
> Berard
>  
> --------- Original Message ---------
> Subject: [council] Motion for London GNSO Meeting / New gTLDs Subsequent 
> Rounds
> From: "Bret Fausett" <bret@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: 6/15/14 8:43 am
> To: "GNSO Council List" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Dear Councilors, 
>  
> Please find below a motion for the upcoming Council meeting in London. We had 
> previously discussed moving forward with a review of the most recent new gTLD 
> application phase, and I understand that ICANN will be making some 
> presentations in London about subsequent rounds. This motion is intended to 
> formalize the Council's discussions around new gTLDs and prepare us for 
> creating issue reports, if we identify areas for policy work, and, if 
> necessary, policy development processes for revisions or adjustments to the 
> new gTLD program.
>  
> The rationale for the motion is that subsequent rounds for new gTLD 
> applications are baked into the current process. Round 2+ will move forward 
> with or without us. This motion is intended to reaffirm the Council’s 
> continuing interest in the new gTLD process and set the stage for us to 
> adjust, refine, or add to the current policy recommendations that are at the 
> center of the new gTLD process. Right now, this motion does not identify any 
> particular areas for policy work. The motion (a) creates a process for us to 
> identify any issues that may require future policy work; (b) asks for input 
> from the Board New gTLD committee on areas for possible policy work; and (c) 
> asks for a status report from ICANN Staff on ICANN’s evaluation of Round 1 
> and its current projected timetable for future rounds. 
>  
> I look forward to seeing you all in London.
>  
> Bret Fausett
>  
> — MOTION — 
>  
> Whereas, in 2005, this Council of the Generic Names Supporting Organization 
> (GNSO) began a policy development process to consider the introduction of new 
> gTLDs, which resulted in the creation of certain policy recommendations for 
> the launch of a new gTLD application process; and,
>  
> Whereas, in September 2007, this Council adopted the policy recommendations 
> from the GNSO policy development process and forwarded them to the ICANN 
> Board of Directors; and,
>  
> Whereas, in June 2008, the ICANN Board adopted the GNSO's policy 
> recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs and directed staff to 
> develop an implementation plan for a new gTLD introduction process; and
>  
> Whereas, in June 2011, the ICANN Board approved an Application Guidebook 
> ("AGB") for new gTLDs and authorized the launch of the New gTLD Program; and,
>  
> Whereas, the AGB provided that it was intended to govern "the first round of 
> what is to be an ongoing process for the introduction of new TLDs" 
> (Application, Module 2); and,
>  
> Whereas, Section 1.1.6 of the AGB ("Subsequent Application Rounds") provided 
> that "ICANN’s goal [was] to launch subsequent gTLD application rounds as 
> quickly as possible" and promised to base the timing of subsequent rounds on 
> "experiences gained and changes required after this round is completed" with 
> a "goal...for the next application round to begin within one year of the 
> close of the application submission period for the initial round.;" and
>  
> Whereas, the first round application submission period closed in June, 2012; 
> and,
>  
> Whereas, the Council believes that it has a continuing interest and role to 
> play in evaluating the experiences of the first found and proposing policy 
> recommendations, if necessary, for changes to subsequent rounds;
>  
> Now therefore, it is resolved:
>  
> 1. The GNSO Council creates a new committee of the whole to discuss the 
> experiences gained by the first round of new gTLD applications and identify 
> subjects for future issue reports, if any, that might lead to changes or 
> adjustments for subsequent application rounds; and,
>  
> 2. ICANN invites the New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board to provide 
> input into the GNSO Council discussion to identify areas that it believes may 
> be appropriate for discussion for an evaluation of the current gTLD 
> application round and/or for possible adjustments for subsequent application 
> rounds; and,
>  
> 3. The GNSO Council requests a status report from ICANN Staff on the current 
> progress of the New gTLD program, ICANN's work to date on any evaluation of 
> the first round, and ICANN's current projection for a timetable for 
> subsequent rounds.
>  
> — END MOTION — 
>  
>  
> 
> 
>