I support a vote as well but, if more time is given before we vote: 1) it would be helpful to get a sense today where we are (e.g., straw poll); 2) we should vote no later than our 8 January meeting; 3)in the meantime it would be very helpful for the GNSO to communicate to the Staff and more importantly to the Board that we strongly believe the following two things. First, neither the New gTLD or ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs in the root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree. Second, fast track IDN ccTLDs should not be entered into the root if they do not have an enforceable commitment to do the following that gTLDs must go i) follow minimal security and stability requirements, IDN Guidelines and IDN standards; ii) pay ICANN fees sufficient to ensure that IDN ccTLDs are fully self-funding and are not cross-subsidized by other ICANN activities. Regarding ii) above, please note the following statement contained in the first bullet in the "Summary of Key Points in This Paper" section of the Explanatory Memorandum for New gTLD Applicant Guidebook Module 1 titled "Cost Considerations of the New gTLD Program": "The new gTLD implementation should be fully self-funding (costs should not exceed fees; existing ICANN activities regarding technical coordination of names, numbers and other identifiers should not cross-subsidize this new program)." See http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/cost-considerations-23oct08-en.pdf. Would those who do not want to vote today on my original motion with the friendly amendment from Stephane be willing to vote on a motion like the following instead? "Whereas both the GNSO and ccNSO are anticipating implementation of processes to introduce IDN TLDs in 2009, resolve 1) the GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the New gTLD or ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs in the root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree, and 2) fast track IDN ccTLDs should not be entered into the root if they do not have an enforceable commitment to do the following as gTLDs must do: i) follow minimal security and stability requirements, IDN Guidelines and IDN standards; ii) pay ICANN fees sufficient to ensure that IDN ccTLDs are fully self-funding and are not cross-subsidized by other ICANN activities." I understand that we haven't had 7 days notice for this motion but I believe that it is perfectly consistent with positions that we as a Council have approved and communicated before. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Anthony Harris [mailto:harris@cabase.org.ar] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 9:09 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Rosette, Kristina; Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs
I agree with Stephane, it should be voted on. The process should at least be kept on schedule.
Tony Harris
----- Original Message ----- From: "Stéphane Van Gelder" <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com>; "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>; "Avri Doria" <avri@psg.com> Cc: "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs
I have seen just as many comments calling for the process
to be, if not
accelerated, at least kept on schedule.
This motion seeks to clarify something which was a part of the initial GNSO recommendations for the new TLD program.
I think it is a useful motion and would rather voting on it not be deferred.
Thanks,
Stéphane Van Gelder
Le 17/12/08 22:50, « Rosette, Kristina » <krosette@cov.com> a écrit :
The overall effect of the motion is to hasten the opening of the application round. Many of the comments I've read thus far (starting with the most recent and working backwards) have expressed concern about the current timetable - let alone an expedited one.
K
-----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:47 PM To: Rosette, Kristina; St?phane Van Gelder; Avri Doria Cc: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs
Kristina,
How would public comments affect the issues in this motion? Regardless of the comments, we still have the possibility of a gap between the implementation of fast track IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:30 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; St?phane Van Gelder; Avri Doria Cc: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs
Given the volume of public comment, I suggest that we defer voting on this motion until all GNSO Councilors who intend to read the public comments have done so.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:21 PM To: St?phane Van Gelder; Avri Doria Cc: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs
As I said before, I accept Stephane's amendment as a friendly amendment.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of St?phane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:53 PM To: Avri Doria Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs Importance: High
I still see the same text on the wiki.
This is the text with my friendly amendment that I had on record:
Whereas:
? Implementation Guideline E states, ?The application submission date will be at least four months after the issue of the Request for Proposal and ICANN will promote the opening of the application round.? (See Final Report, Part A, Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains, dated 8 August 2007 at
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm#
_Toc4379 8015 )
* The intent of the GNSO with regard to Guideline E was to attempt to ensure that all potential applicants, including those that have not been active in recent ICANN activities regarding the introduction of new gTLDs, would be informed of the process and have reasonable time to prepare a proposal if they so desire. * The minimum 4-month period for promoting the opening of the application round is commonly referred to as the ?Communications Period?. * Considerable delays have been incurred in the implementation of new gTLDs and the GNSO wishes to minimize any further delays. * It appears evident that a second Draft Applicant Guidebook (RFP) will be posted at some time after the end of the two 45-day public comment periods related to the initial version of the Guidebook (in English and other languages).
Resolve:
? The GNSO Council changes Implementation Guideline E to the following:
o Best efforts will be made to ensure that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment at least 14 days before the first international meeting of 2009, to be held in Mexico from March 1 to March 6.
o ICANN will initiate the Communications Period at the same time that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment.
o The opening of the initial application round will occur no earlier than four (4) months after the start of the Communications Period and no earlier than 30 days after the posting of the final Applicant Guidebook (RFP).
o As applicable, promotions for the opening of the initial application round will include:
? Announcement about the public comment period following the posting of the second Draft Applicant Guidebook (RFP)
? Information about the steps that will follow the comment period including approval and posting of the final Applicant Guidebook (RFP)
? Estimates of when the initial application round will begin.