Attached is a summary of the GNSO's Final Report on the Introduction of New Top-Level Domains for GNSO participants' consideration and use at the GNSO's New gTLD Workshop in Los Angeles on Monday, 29 October, 13:00 - 19:00. This document summarizes the recommendations contained in the Report and notes other work under way to facilitate the introduction of new gTLDs in an orderly and transparent way. Where particularly applicable, it also attempts to briefly provide information about various issues considered by the GNSO Committee and the rationale behind the final wording of principles, recommendations and implementation guidelines. (The Report, which was approved by the GNSO Council last month and is being sent to ICANN's Board for consideration, can be found at <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm>). This document is meant to provide a concise and easy to read summary of the key elements of the Report, and is organized to correspond with the Workshop sessions. GNSO constituency members are encouraged to consider the summary, and the Report, and submit questions in advance that they would like the Workshop panelists to address on the 29th. *Questions should be emailed to <new-gtlds-workshop@icann.org> or submitted via the on line comment form found on the Workshop web page at <http://losangeles2007.icann.org/node/45>.* Questions will be publicly posted and provided to the Workshop moderator and panelists. As previously noted, GNSO constituencies are encouraged to attend the special, interactive workshop at ICANN's Los Angeles meeting focused on the GNSO Council's final report on the introduction of new gTLDs. The workshop will feature extensive opportunities for audience comments and questions and Council responses. We look forward to seeing you in LA. Regards, Denise Michel Vice President, Policy Development denise.michel@icann.org
On 11 okt 2007, at 11.10, Denise Michel wrote:
<New gtlds workshop document.doc>
I want to point out that this document contains a recommendation, on page 13 #20.c, by the staff that there may need to be sub-rounds as part of the new GTLD process. As far as my memory goes, this is _not_ in any way a part of the GNSO recommendation or implementation guidelines. And while I admit I do not understand how such a sub-round would work it think it runs counter to the notion of a round as was defined by the Council. In my understanding, within a round, while all applications would be treated as simultaneous in regards to name contention, for all other purposes applications would be processed individually on a first come first served basis. While this means that the first aspects of processing, that is determining validity and checking on name conflicts would be done during the initial part of the process in what could be called a batch mode, once the open call for applications was closed and processing began in earnest on valid applications for which there was no name contention, they would be done on a first come first served, and first completed first deployed basis. I do not understand how the notion of sub-rounds would work within such a construct. a.
Denise, I would hope this issue can be addressed before LA so that the summary that will then be circulated reflect as accurately as possible the intent of the council. For practical reasons, chances are that the larger public will eventually rely on the summary more than the original, and we wouldn't want to send a misleading message. Thanks, Mawaki --- Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 11 okt 2007, at 11.10, Denise Michel wrote:
<New gtlds workshop document.doc>
I want to point out that this document contains a recommendation, on page 13 #20.c, by the staff that there may need to be sub-rounds as part of the new GTLD process.
As far as my memory goes, this is _not_ in any way a part of the GNSO recommendation or implementation guidelines. And while I admit I do not understand how such a sub-round would work it think it runs counter to the notion of a round as was defined by the Council.
In my understanding, within a round, while all applications would be treated as simultaneous in regards to name contention, for all other purposes applications would be processed individually on a first come first served basis. While this means that the first aspects of processing, that is determining validity and checking on name
conflicts would be done during the initial part of the process in what could be called a batch mode, once the open call for applications was closed and processing began in earnest on valid applications for which there was no name contention, they would be done on a first come first served, and first completed first deployed basis.
I do not understand how the notion of sub-rounds would work within such a construct.
a.
I want to make sure all GNSO Council and constituency participants are aware that the public comment period on the "GNSO Improvements" report was extended to 30 November 2007. On 15 October 2007, the Board Governance Committee's GNSO Review Working Group issued a comprehensive proposal to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO, including its policy activities, structure, operations and communications. The proposed set of GNSO improvements was discussed at a public forum during the ICANN LA meeting. The forum discussion and public comments will be considered and a final report will be presented to the full Board Governance Committee and the Board. More information can be found at <http://icann.org/public_comment/#gnso-improvements>. Thank you for bringing this to the attention of interested parties. Regards, Denise Denise Michel Vice President, Policy Development ICANN www.icann.org denise.michel@icann.org
participants (3)
-
Avri Doria -
Denise Michel -
Mawaki Chango