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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Alan.  Goes to show that my memory was faulty.  We received fairly good 
support for it with 19 votes.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 3:29 PM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
> 
> 
> 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> 
> 
>