I would like to express support for the motion as presented by Chuck with Stephane's friendly amendment. Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: Gomes, Chuck To: Adrian Kinderis ; Council GNSO Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 12:58 PM Subject: [council] RE: Motion re. New gTLD Communications Period Thanks for the clarification Adrian. I believe there are two key elements of Implementation Guideline E (IG E): 1.. The communications period must begin a minimum of four months before the application period starts. 2.. The communications period must begin after the Final RFP is posted. I believe my motion is consistent with element 1 but changes element 2. Your proposed amendment changes both elements and that is one reason why I am cautious about accepting it as a friendly amendment. If we completely change the recommendation, it seems like it would be better to have a separate vote to do so before voting on the amendment. I could probably be convinced to accept your amendment to my motion as friendly if this was the only issue, but I have larger concerns with regard to the change your motion might have on the intent of IG E. As I said in my previous message, I think the intent of the guideline was to make it possible for applicants who have not been aware of the process to still be able to participate. In that regard, assuming we still support the original intent, we should ask ourselves whether the intent is reasonably satisfied with my motion and likewise whether it would be reasonably satisfied if your change to my motion was added. I obviously believed that the answer was yes to my motion and I think you believe that the answer is yes if your amendment to my motion was made. Both of us are concerned about impact on the timeline so lets look at that with these assumptions: 1) there will be a 30-day comment period after the 2nd Draft RFP is posted; 2) it will take Staff at least 30 days after the second comment period to finalize the RFP (this may be optimistic); 3) it will take at least 30 days for the Board to approve the Final RFP (this also may be optimistic especially considering the timing of Staff finalization of the Final RFP relative to the timing of Board meetings). Assuming the best case scenario (30 days for 2nd comment period, 30 days for Staff to finalize the RFP, 30 days for Board approval): a.. My amendment without your change would save 90 days off of the timeline if IG E was implemented as is but the application period would still have to start 4 months after the start of the Communications Period and 30 days after the Final RFP posting. b.. My amendment modified with your change would still save just 90 days because the application period would still have to start 30 days after the Final RFP posting. If the best case scenario doesn't apply ( i.e., one or more of the steps take more than 30 days), then we could save more than 90 days, maybe a lot more. That is where your amendment could reduce the timeline impact more than mine because the communications period could not exceed four months. That could mean that the application period would have to start no later than four months after the posting of Draft RFP 2 whether the RFP was finalized and approved or not. That might be a problem because it would definitely go against the intent of the IG E. At a minimum, I strongly believe that the Final RFP must be approved before the application period starts. I also personally believe that it is important for there to be some time after the Final RFP is posted before the application period starts; I picked 30 days. As you know, in previous rounds, some parts of the RFP were not posted until after the application period started (e.g., the draft base agreement). I think one thing that we should not compromise on is this: The Final RFP should be posted before the application period begins so that everyone has a complete picture of what they are facing and can develop risk models, business models, etc. that accommodate for all factors. Conclusions: 1) I do not consider your presently proposed amendment friendly; 2) it might be helpful if you redraft you amendment to my motion to focus on the time that Staff and the Board take on the three steps leading to approval of the final RFP. For example, we could recommend any or all of the following: a) the 2nd comment period should not last more than 30 days; b) Staff should address public comments and finalize the RFP for Board consideration in at least 30 days; c) the Board should approve a Final RFP within 30 days of receiving Staff recommendation. I am not sure the second two recommendations are realistic or that we have much control over them but we could at least recommend that best efforts be made. Chuck ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 1:01 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO Subject: RE: Motion re. New gTLD Communications Period Thanks Chuck. I wasn't expecting you to name names nor lay blame and in doing so I think you missed my point. I do not think the amendment would be a material change at all. As you state; "The minimum 4-month period for promoting the opening of the application round is commonly referred to as the 'Communications Period'". A material change would be to disagree with this premise. That is, to disagree that a period of time is required "for promoting the opening of the application round", which I do not. The intent is good. That said, what I do disagree with is the length of time (as, in a way, are you with your original proposal). I am merely asking ICANN staff to receive advice, either internally or externally to ensure that a full 4 months is required given their budget and goals. I suspect not. If that is the case, allow the Communications Team to suggest a promotions period so long as it doesn't exceed 4 months. I trust this helps explain my point. If you do not consider the amendment friendly I shall look to propose my own. Adrian Kinderis From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Sunday, 23 November 2008 1:43 AM To: Adrian Kinderis; Council GNSO Subject: RE: Motion re. New gTLD Communications Period Adrian, I think your amendment would be a material change to the intent of Implementation Guideline E. I need to be careful about citing names because it was a long time ago, but I believe one of the proponents of the communications period was one of your Registrar Constituency colleagues: Werner Staub. So I suggest you talk to him. In fairness to Werner though, the rest of us thought that it was a reasonable thing to do. And I still believe that the intent is good. But I believe that the intent can be accomplished with modifications like I included in my motion. Chuck -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 9:59 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO Subject: RE: Motion re. New gTLD Communications Period Thanks Chuck. Whilst we have opened Pandora's box, let me peek in... Why 4 months at all? Which Communications and Media expert within the GNSO Council suggested that 4 months would be an appropriate amount of time to run a Global Communications Campaign? I would have thought we'd look to limit the maximum amount of time not dictate the amount of time required. The advice may be that only a month is required...? Can I suggest a friendly amendment? Perhaps it could read as follows (changes marked up in red); 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#_Toc43... ) a.. 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. b.. The minimum 4-month period for promoting the opening of the application round is commonly referred to as the 'Communications Period'. c.. Considerable delays have been incurred in the implementation of new gTLDs and the GNSO wishes to minimize any further delays. d.. 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 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 later 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 The actual duration of the Communications Period will be determined by ICANN staff and appropriate Media and Strategic Consultancy (but shall not exceed four (4) months). 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. Adrian Kinderis Managing Director AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian@ausregistry.com Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Saturday, 22 November 2008 11:15 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Motion re. New gTLD Communications Period I would like to make the following motion (also attached as a Word file) for consideration at our next Council meeting. Chuck Gomes 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#_Toc43... ) a.. 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. b.. The minimum 4-month period for promoting the opening of the application round is commonly referred to as the 'Communications Period'. c.. Considerable delays have been incurred in the implementation of new gTLDs and the GNSO wishes to minimize any further delays. d.. 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 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.