|
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
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.
|