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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I took your "discussed" in the same way as 
Chuck's "We talked a long time ago", that is just 
talk. The January motion did have a date in it, 
albeit in reference to another event. 
Specifically, the date of posting DAG V2. If our 
advice had been followed, it would have made for a mighty long 4 months.
In any case, I have no problem with Council doing 
something like this again. I just wanted it to be 
clear that we had (unsuccessfully) given similar advice before.
Unfortunately, this kind of advice from the GNSO 
(unlike the output of formal policy processes) 
tends to have the same impact as advice from ALAC 
to the Board. It goes into a large black hole...
Alan

At 07/06/2009 02:06 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> Alan,
>
> That's what I was referring to when I said that we'd already discussed this
> at Council level in my previous email.
>
> The difference is, as I see it, that this time we would set a date. That
> hasn't been done before and I would see this as an important signal sent by
> the GNSO that this shouldn't stay a moving target forever.
>
> Stéphane
>
>
> Le 07/06/09 18:56, « Alan Greenberg » <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >