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

[Bret Fausett <bret@xxxxxxxx>]

What works best, Marika? My thought here is that the output of this “open 
committee,” or whatever we decide to call it, will be a set of neutrally worded 
issues that we can send to you for the preparation of issue reports. We have 
work to do in identifying the policy issues (as separate from suggestions for 
operational improvements) and then grouping those policy issues into common 
areas where perhaps they could become part of the same issue report. 

I typically think of a “drafting committee” as a committee charged with the 
preparation of a specific thing. Since we do not have a specific thing 
identified here — our work will be to discover together the things that the 
Council may want to consider for future policy development — this may be more 
like a working group. At the same time, most working groups involve a fair 
amount of advocacy for a specific outcome. I think that sort of participation 
is premature. This first step is really issue identification, and the advocacy, 
if any, should come later, at the PDP stage. 

Against that background, what works best here? Thank you for the question, and 
my apologies for not being more precise in my wording.

--
Bret Fausett, Esq. • General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. 
— — — — — 




On Jun 24, 2014, at 6:45 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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 Avri’s helpful suggestion that we change 
> “subsequent application rounds” to “subsequent application procedures”, and I 
> have made this change in both Section 1 and 2 of the “Resolved"; and (b) it 
> changes the committee created in Section 1 from a Committee of the Council to 
> a new “open committee”. 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 (“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 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
> — — — — — 
> 
> 
> 
>