[council] Revised Motion

[Bret Fausett <bret@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear Council Members,

As we discussed over the weekend sessions, I have taken helpful suggestions 
from John Berard, Steve DelBianco and Avri Doria and revised the motion as 
follows. The additions are the 4th and 5th Whereas clauses, which are new, and 
Sections 3(b) and (d) of the Resolution section, which also are new. I also 
have taken Avri’s suggestion that we not obligate the Council as a whole to 
discuss this, and I have changed "new committee of the whole” in Section 1 to 
simply “new committee of the Council.” We can certainly all opt in to that 
Committee if we wish, but it won’t be obligatory. 

I look forward to discussing this issue in our meeting on Wednesday.

      Bret



— START 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 September 2009, ICANN and the U.S. National Telecommunications 
Information Administration entered into an Affirmation of Commitments (“AOC”) 
in which ICANN committed to organize a review of certain aspects of the 
introduction and expansion of gTLDs (AOC, at Section 9.3); and,

Whereas, in its April, 2011 Communique, ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee 
(“GAC”) asked (at p.6) for a "comprehensive post-launch independent review of 
the [Trademark] Clearinghouse [to] be conducted one year after the launch of 
the 75th new gTLD in the round;” 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 Council 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 (a) the New gTLD program generally; (b) ICANN's anticipated 
timeline and work plan for the review specified in Section 9.3 of the 
Affirmation of Commitments; (c) ICANN's work to date on any evaluation of the 
first round; (d) the work to date on the post-launch independent review of the 
Trademark Clearinghouse; and (e) ICANN's current projection for a timetable for 
subsequent rounds.

— END MOTION —