|
I agree with Chuck
Tony Harris
----- Original Message -----
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
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.
|