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

["Reed, Daniel A" <dan-reed@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think this is a good replacement

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 4:51 AM
To: 'Marika Konings'; 'Bret Fausett'
Cc: 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: RE: [council] Revised Motion for Council Meeting on Wednesday

Thanks Marika,

I hereby propose “Discussion Group” in place of “open Committee” as a friendly 
amendment to Motion 2.

Jonathan

From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 24 June 2014 19:43
To: Bret Fausett
Cc: GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] Revised Motion for Council Meeting on Wednesday

I think we have also used the term 'discussion group' in the past (as an open 
group to flesh out certain topics which may result in a document or at a 
minimum feedback on possible next steps to the Council which could include the 
formation of a DT or WG as a next step). Maybe that conveys the objective of 
this group?

Best regards,

Marika

On 24 jun. 2014, at 19:15, "Bret Fausett" <bret@xxxxxxxx<mailto:bret@xxxxxxxx>> 
wrote:
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<mailto: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<mailto:bret@xxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday 24 June 2014 12:38
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:bret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
— — — — —