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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I don't really recall the discussion about it 
either, but it is in the minutes (with you making 
the motion) and I clearly recall Mike and Tim 
giving their reasons for abstaining 
(http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-08jan09.shtml).
Alan

At 07/06/2009 03:15 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> In my memory, we never even proposed a motion 
> nor get past the discussion stage at a very high level.
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> > Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 12:56 PM
> > To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >