RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing

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

I think Avri is on the right track in terms of timing for the new gTLD
process if delays are to be avoided.  It is my opinion that to be
incorporated into the first round of the new gTLD process, the WG will
have to submit any recommendations not later than May.  Any such
recommendations would then need to be put out for public comment before
the Council could act on them.  If the Council approved them, they would
then be sent to the Board and another comment period would probably be
needed as well as getting input from the GAC and other SO's or AC's if
applicable.  By the time that is done, we are at least into August and
maybe September, at which time the AG needs to be finalized for Board
action.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 2:08 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As one of those who spoke in favor of phasing, let me explain myself.
> 
> In any phasing, dealing with recommendations for the current 
> round should be phase I and should be completed as quickly as 
> possible without any deviations for side issues.
> 
> If, on the other hand there are more complicated issues that 
> we want to consider with relation to incumbent practice or 
> what would pertain in future rounds that is the stuff I would 
> recommend for a second phase.  Additionally, if for example 
> we decide on a set of practices that are ok for this current 
> round, but then decide that we want to consider what happens 
> when conditions change and the registry wants to change its 
> model , that is an issue I would defer to a second phase.  On 
> the other hand if we set a bunch conditions related to 
> co/cross ownership for new first round registries and want to 
> consider allowing an incumbent to adopt that model, that too 
> is something I would recommend pushing off to a later phase.  
> BTW, I would not be surprised in some of these hypothetical 
> issues required going back to the GNSO for a charter renewal 
> at some point (not recommending that for now).
> 
> In short I recommend phasing and the creation of a phase II 
> so that we have a place to put any issue that comes up that 
> does not immediately affect the current new gTLD process.  
> For all of the stuff related to this round - I hope we have  
> our recommendations in time for Brussels, if not before.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
>