RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs
I am not making the request on behalf of the constituency and I am not making
it because the IPC needs more time to study it.
I am making the request because the Council has been criticized in the past for
ignoring public comment. I believe that criticism is generally well-founded
and that it would be irresponsible to vote until all Councilors who intend to
read all of the public comment have done so. I doubt that I am the only
Councilor who has not in the past two days read the hundreds of pages of public
comment.
Appropriate motions will follow soon.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:35 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs
Hi,
As I mentioned in an earlier note, it has become a practice in the council that
any constituency can request that a vote be postponed one
meeting if they need more time to study it within the constituency.
Generally, I cannot think of an exception, we have honored these requests.
a.
On 18 Dec 2008, at 14:28, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> 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@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> 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@xxxxxxx]
>>> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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.ht
>>> m#
>>>>> _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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>