I would like to second this motion as presented by Chuck Gomes. Tony Harris Motions on gTLD Implementation Motion 1 (tabled until 8 January meeting) Made by Chuck Gomes Seconded by: 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... ) 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: * 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. * ICANN will initiate the Communications Period at the same time that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment. * 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). * 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.
Chuck, Would you consider it a friendly amendment to remove this language, given the overwhelming public comment to the contrary? Considerable delays have been incurred in the implementation of new gTLDs and the GNSO wishes to minimize any further delays. The BC probably cannot support this motion anyway, but if it passes it would be more palatable to the community without this potentially inflammatory language. Thanks, Mike _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Harris Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:15 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION I would like to second this motion as presented by Chuck Gomes. Tony Harris Motions on gTLD Implementation Motion 1 (tabled until 8 January meeting) Made by Chuck Gomes Seconded by: 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 798015 ) 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: * 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. * ICANN will initiate the Communications Period at the same time that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment. * 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). * 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.
Mike, May I suggest that the GNSO¹s position should be to request for the planned implementation agenda to be kept on track, which is exactly what that sentence says? There are also a lot of comments from the community strongly requesting that no further time be lost or, indeed, that the process be sped up. As the new TLD program stems from the GNSO, it would not seem out of place for the GNSO to strive towards a timely implementation of this program. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Le 08/01/09 18:39, « Mike Rodenbaugh » <icann@rodenbaugh.com> a écrit :
Chuck,
Would you consider it a friendly amendment to remove this language, given the overwhelming public comment to the contrary?
Considerable delays have been incurred in the implementation of new gTLDs and the GNSO wishes to minimize any further delays.
The BC probably cannot support this motion anyway, but if it passes it would be more palatable to the community without this potentially inflammatory language.
Thanks, Mike
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Harris Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:15 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION
I would like to second this motion as presented
by Chuck Gomes.
Tony Harris
Motions on gTLD Implementation Motion 1 (tabled until 8 January meeting) Made by Chuck Gomes
Seconded by:
Whereas:
Implementation Guideline E states, ³The 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.² (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... 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 Period¹. 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: * 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. * ICANN will initiate the Communications Period at the same time that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment. * 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). * 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.
Re: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATIONI fully agree with Stephane, having read all the comments I disagree that comments to the contrary are overwhelming, there are simply repeated expressions from brand interests complaining about the introduction of new TLDs. I thought we were past that discussion after three years of Council work on this new round? Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: Stéphane Van Gelder To: icann@rodenbaugh.com ; 'Council GNSO' Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION Mike, May I suggest that the GNSO's position should be to request for the planned implementation agenda to be kept on track, which is exactly what that sentence says? There are also a lot of comments from the community strongly requesting that no further time be lost or, indeed, that the process be sped up. As the new TLD program stems from the GNSO, it would not seem out of place for the GNSO to strive towards a timely implementation of this program. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Le 08/01/09 18:39, « Mike Rodenbaugh » <icann@rodenbaugh.com> a écrit : Chuck, Would you consider it a friendly amendment to remove this language, given the overwhelming public comment to the contrary? Considerable delays have been incurred in the implementation of new gTLDs and the GNSO wishes to minimize any further delays. The BC probably cannot support this motion anyway, but if it passes it would be more palatable to the community without this potentially inflammatory language. Thanks, Mike ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Harris Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:15 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION I would like to second this motion as presented by Chuck Gomes. Tony Harris Motions on gTLD Implementation Motion 1 (tabled until 8 January meeting) Made by Chuck Gomes Seconded by: 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... ) 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: * 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. * ICANN will initiate the Communications Period at the same time that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment. * 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). * 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.
Hi Tony and Stephane, I dont have much care either way on this, am only trying to eliminate some language that could be picked upon by many, and is not necessary to the motion. Thanks, Mike _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Harris Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 10:01 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; icann@rodenbaugh.com; 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION I fully agree with Stephane, having read all the comments I disagree that comments to the contrary are overwhelming, there are simply repeated expressions from brand interests complaining about the introduction of new TLDs. I thought we were past that discussion after three years of Council work on this new round? Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: Stéphane <mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Van Gelder To: icann@rodenbaugh.com ; 'Council <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO' Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION Mike, May I suggest that the GNSOs position should be to request for the planned implementation agenda to be kept on track, which is exactly what that sentence says? There are also a lot of comments from the community strongly requesting that no further time be lost or, indeed, that the process be sped up. As the new TLD program stems from the GNSO, it would not seem out of place for the GNSO to strive towards a timely implementation of this program. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Le 08/01/09 18:39, « Mike Rodenbaugh » <icann@rodenbaugh.com> a écrit : Chuck, Would you consider it a friendly amendment to remove this language, given the overwhelming public comment to the contrary? Considerable delays have been incurred in the implementation of new gTLDs and the GNSO wishes to minimize any further delays. The BC probably cannot support this motion anyway, but if it passes it would be more palatable to the community without this potentially inflammatory language. Thanks, Mike _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Harris Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:15 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION I would like to second this motion as presented by Chuck Gomes. Tony Harris Motions on gTLD Implementation Motion 1 (tabled until 8 January meeting) Made by Chuck Gomes Seconded by: 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 798015 ) 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: * 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. * ICANN will initiate the Communications Period at the same time that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment. * 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). * 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.
It would be accurate to say "[some/several/most] constituencies within the GNSO wish to minimize any further delays" or, depending on how it looks the vote will go "the GNSO Council wishes to minimize any further delays". It is not, however, accurate to say "the GNSO wishes to minimize any further delays". As long as certain constituencies or portions of constituencies believe that further implementation work is necessary and doing that work will result in delay, it's simply not possible to refer to the entire GNSO. ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Harris Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 1:01 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; icann@rodenbaugh.com; 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION I fully agree with Stephane, having read all the comments I disagree that comments to the contrary are overwhelming, there are simply repeated expressions from brand interests complaining about the introduction of new TLDs. I thought we were past that discussion after three years of Council work on this new round? Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com> To: icann@rodenbaugh.com ; 'Council GNSO' <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION Mike, May I suggest that the GNSO's position should be to request for the planned implementation agenda to be kept on track, which is exactly what that sentence says? There are also a lot of comments from the community strongly requesting that no further time be lost or, indeed, that the process be sped up. As the new TLD program stems from the GNSO, it would not seem out of place for the GNSO to strive towards a timely implementation of this program. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Le 08/01/09 18:39, « Mike Rodenbaugh » <icann@rodenbaugh.com> a écrit : Chuck, Would you consider it a friendly amendment to remove this language, given the overwhelming public comment to the contrary? Considerable delays have been incurred in the implementation of new gTLDs and the GNSO wishes to minimize any further delays. The BC probably cannot support this motion anyway, but if it passes it would be more palatable to the community without this potentially inflammatory language. Thanks, Mike ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Harris Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:15 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION I would like to second this motion as presented by Chuck Gomes. Tony Harris Motions on gTLD Implementation Motion 1 (tabled until 8 January meeting) Made by Chuck Gomes Seconded by: 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... ) 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: * 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. * ICANN will initiate the Communications Period at the same time that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment. * 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). * 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.
Sorry for saying this but it feels like we¹re going around in circles here. Anthony¹s point about us getting past certain issues after 3 years of work seems extremely pertinent to me. The new TLD program was presented to the Board by the GNSO Council. Surely the Council can appear united when working to see it implemented, can it not? Mike just sent an email explaining why he proposed that friendly amendment. What he says makes sense to me. If the wording might offend, then maybe we are better off without it in the motion. The important thing is to get the motion passed IMO. Thanks, Stéphane Le 08/01/09 19:34, « Rosette, Kristina » <krosette@cov.com> a écrit :
It would be accurate to say "[some/several/most] constituencies within the GNSO wish to minimize any further delays" or, depending on how it looks the vote will go "the GNSO Council wishes to minimize any further delays". It is not, however, accurate to say "the GNSO wishes to minimize any further delays". As long as certain constituencies or portions of constituencies believe that further implementation work is necessary and doing that work will result in delay, it's simply not possible to refer to the entire GNSO.
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Harris Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 1:01 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; icann@rodenbaugh.com; 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION
I fully agree with Stephane, having read all the
comments I disagree that comments to the
contrary are overwhelming, there are simply
repeated expressions from brand interests
complaining about the introduction of new
TLDs. I thought we were past that discussion
after three years of Council work on this
new round?
Tony Harris
----- Original Message -----
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
To: icann@rodenbaugh.com ; 'Council GNSO' <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION
Mike,
May I suggest that the GNSO¹s position should be to request for the planned implementation agenda to be kept on track, which is exactly what that sentence says?
There are also a lot of comments from the community strongly requesting that no further time be lost or, indeed, that the process be sped up.
As the new TLD program stems from the GNSO, it would not seem out of place for the GNSO to strive towards a timely implementation of this program.
Thanks,
Stéphane Van Gelder
Le 08/01/09 18:39, « Mike Rodenbaugh » <icann@rodenbaugh.com> a écrit :
Chuck,
Would you consider it a friendly amendment to remove this language, given the overwhelming public comment to the contrary?
Considerable delays have been incurred in the implementation of new gTLDs and the GNSO wishes to minimize any further delays.
The BC probably cannot support this motion anyway, but if it passes it would be more palatable to the community without this potentially inflammatory language.
Thanks, Mike
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Harris Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:15 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION
I would like to second this motion as presented
by Chuck Gomes.
Tony Harris
Motions on gTLD Implementation Motion 1 (tabled until 8 January meeting) Made by Chuck Gomes
Seconded by:
Whereas:
Implementation Guideline E states, ³The 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.² (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#_Toc4 3798015 ) 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 Period¹. 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: * 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. * ICANN will initiate the Communications Period at the same time that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment. * 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). * 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.
It seems to me that fixing the language is very doable. I would also be open to adjusting some language that recognizes that it is understood that the 2nd draft will involve considerable effort in responding to the many constructive comments that have been submitted. My intent is not to short circuit the time needed to make sure that that the final product is as good as possible. At the same time I do believe that the orginal goals with regard to the communication period can be achieved with the changes this motion suggests or some similar version of them. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 1:35 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION It would be accurate to say "[some/several/most] constituencies within the GNSO wish to minimize any further delays" or, depending on how it looks the vote will go "the GNSO Council wishes to minimize any further delays". It is not, however, accurate to say "the GNSO wishes to minimize any further delays". As long as certain constituencies or portions of constituencies believe that further implementation work is necessary and doing that work will result in delay, it's simply not possible to refer to the entire GNSO. ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Harris Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 1:01 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; icann@rodenbaugh.com; 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION I fully agree with Stephane, having read all the comments I disagree that comments to the contrary are overwhelming, there are simply repeated expressions from brand interests complaining about the introduction of new TLDs. I thought we were past that discussion after three years of Council work on this new round? Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com> To: icann@rodenbaugh.com ; 'Council GNSO' <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION Mike, May I suggest that the GNSO's position should be to request for the planned implementation agenda to be kept on track, which is exactly what that sentence says? There are also a lot of comments from the community strongly requesting that no further time be lost or, indeed, that the process be sped up. As the new TLD program stems from the GNSO, it would not seem out of place for the GNSO to strive towards a timely implementation of this program. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Le 08/01/09 18:39, « Mike Rodenbaugh » <icann@rodenbaugh.com> a écrit : Chuck, Would you consider it a friendly amendment to remove this language, given the overwhelming public comment to the contrary? Considerable delays have been incurred in the implementation of new gTLDs and the GNSO wishes to minimize any further delays. The BC probably cannot support this motion anyway, but if it passes it would be more palatable to the community without this potentially inflammatory language. Thanks, Mike ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Harris Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:15 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION I would like to second this motion as presented by Chuck Gomes. Tony Harris Motions on gTLD Implementation Motion 1 (tabled until 8 January meeting) Made by Chuck Gomes Seconded by: 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... ) 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: * 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. * ICANN will initiate the Communications Period at the same time that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment. * 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). * 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.
Re: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATIONI agree with Chuck Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: Gomes, Chuck To: Rosette, Kristina ; Council GNSO Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 3:49 PM Subject: RE: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION It seems to me that fixing the language is very doable. I would also be open to adjusting some language that recognizes that it is understood that the 2nd draft will involve considerable effort in responding to the many constructive comments that have been submitted. My intent is not to short circuit the time needed to make sure that that the final product is as good as possible. At the same time I do believe that the orginal goals with regard to the communication period can be achieved with the changes this motion suggests or some similar version of them. Chuck ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 1:35 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION It would be accurate to say "[some/several/most] constituencies within the GNSO wish to minimize any further delays" or, depending on how it looks the vote will go "the GNSO Council wishes to minimize any further delays". It is not, however, accurate to say "the GNSO wishes to minimize any further delays". As long as certain constituencies or portions of constituencies believe that further implementation work is necessary and doing that work will result in delay, it's simply not possible to refer to the entire GNSO. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Harris Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 1:01 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; icann@rodenbaugh.com; 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION I fully agree with Stephane, having read all the comments I disagree that comments to the contrary are overwhelming, there are simply repeated expressions from brand interests complaining about the introduction of new TLDs. I thought we were past that discussion after three years of Council work on this new round? Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: Stéphane Van Gelder To: icann@rodenbaugh.com ; 'Council GNSO' Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION Mike, May I suggest that the GNSO's position should be to request for the planned implementation agenda to be kept on track, which is exactly what that sentence says? There are also a lot of comments from the community strongly requesting that no further time be lost or, indeed, that the process be sped up. As the new TLD program stems from the GNSO, it would not seem out of place for the GNSO to strive towards a timely implementation of this program. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Le 08/01/09 18:39, « Mike Rodenbaugh » <icann@rodenbaugh.com> a écrit : Chuck, Would you consider it a friendly amendment to remove this language, given the overwhelming public comment to the contrary? Considerable delays have been incurred in the implementation of new gTLDs and the GNSO wishes to minimize any further delays. The BC probably cannot support this motion anyway, but if it passes it would be more palatable to the community without this potentially inflammatory language. Thanks, Mike ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Harris Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:15 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION I would like to second this motion as presented by Chuck Gomes. Tony Harris Motions on gTLD Implementation Motion 1 (tabled until 8 January meeting) Made by Chuck Gomes Seconded by: 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... ) 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: * 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. * ICANN will initiate the Communications Period at the same time that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment. * 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). * 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.
Mike, I think some flexibility is possible in this regard, but I think it is a fact to state that 'Considerable delays have been incurred in the implementation of new gTLDs'; I wouldn't have a lot of heartburn if people don't want to admit that in the motion. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 12:39 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION Chuck, Would you consider it a friendly amendment to remove this language, given the overwhelming public comment to the contrary? Considerable delays have been incurred in the implementation of new gTLDs and the GNSO wishes to minimize any further delays. The BC probably cannot support this motion anyway, but if it passes it would be more palatable to the community without this potentially inflammatory language. Thanks, Mike ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Harris Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:15 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] MOTION 1 ON gTLD IMPLEMENTATION I would like to second this motion as presented by Chuck Gomes. Tony Harris Motions on gTLD Implementation Motion 1 (tabled until 8 January meeting) Made by Chuck Gomes Seconded by: 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#_T oc43798015 ) 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: * 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. * ICANN will initiate the Communications Period at the same time that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment. * 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). * 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.
participants (5)
-
Anthony Harris -
Gomes, Chuck -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Rosette, Kristina -
Stéphane Van Gelder