Re: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Perhaps I am missing something, but we already 
seem to have passed a similar motion January 8th.
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).
Although history has overtaken us and there will 
now be 3rd draft, isn't the intent the same?
Alan

At 07/06/2009 12:39 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> Thanks Chuck,
>
> I think that's an excellent suggestion. Unless I'm mistaken, it's something
> that we have discussed before at council level and I was already in favour
> of it then. I would like to see, or be happy to propose, a motion along
> those lines.
>
> Stéphane
>
> Le 07/06/09 15:41, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> <text omitted>
> >
> > A long time ago we talked about the idea of initiating the Communications
> > Period before the final DAG was approved.  As you know, the GNSO new gTLD
> > recommendations call for a minimum 4-month 
> Communications Period after the RFP
> > is approved by the Board.  The GNSO Council could officially modify that
> > recommendation to something like the following: "The formal Communications
> > Period as recommended by the GNSO Council should be initiated NLT 1 October
> > 2009 and should end no earlier than 31 January 2009 or 30 days after final
> > Board approval of the DAG, whichever is later."  We should recognize that
> > those who do not want new gTLDs would likely not support this but I think
> > there are chances that we could get a fairly 
> strong majority of the Council to
> > support something like this.