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 -----
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
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#_Toc43798015
)
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.
|