Re: [council] Revised Motion for Council Meeting on Wednesday

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Bret,

Following some conversations today during the preparatory meeting for the
Council meeting tomorrow, would it be possible for you to provide some
further details around the concept of 'open committee'? The Council
currently uses drafting teams and working groups as mechanisms to conduct
work and it is clearly understood how those group operate as well as
expected deliverables. Provided the motion is adopted, staff would need some
additional guidance to develop a call for volunteers that aligns with the
expectations of the Council (or alternatively you may want to consider using
one of the existing terms?).

Best regards,

Marika

From:  Bret Fausett <bret@xxxxxxxx>
Date:  Tuesday 24 June 2014 12:38
To:  GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:  [council] Revised Motion for Council Meeting on Wednesday

Here is a new version of the motion we discussed that makes two changes from
the previous version: (a) it adopts Avri¹s helpful suggestion that we change
³subsequent application rounds² to ³subsequent application procedures², and
I have made this change in both Section 1 and 2 of the ³Resolved"; and (b)
it changes the committee created in Section 1 from a Committee of the
Council to a new ³open committee². Since this is just a committee to
identify issues appropriate for an issues report, I thought it important to
avoid calling it a working group, and I have had multiple expressions of
interest in participating from outside the Council, so I thought it would be
appropriate to keep the committee open.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this, and I look forward to the
discussion tomorrow.

Glen, can you please add this version to the Council motion page?

       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
(³AOC²) 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, ICANN¹s Governmental Advisory
Committee (³GAC²) 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;² 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 "ICANN¹s 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 round and proposing policy
recommendations, if necessary, for changes to subsequent rounds;

Now therefore, it is resolved:

1. The GNSO Council creates a new open committee 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 procedures; 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 procedures; 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 ? 


--
Bret Fausett, Esq. ? General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc.
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 ? Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536
310-496-5755 (T) ? 310-985-1351 (M) ? bret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
? ? ? ? ?

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature