Re: [gtld-council] new TLDs Work Plan 2007
I must have misunderstood as well. Why would the TF enter into consultation w. the other SO's and AC's? Wouldn't this be better managed by the GNSO Council as input to its consideration of the TFs work? Otherwise, we have arranged a potentially un-ending workloop for this TF (create report, send for consultation, recraft to account for input, re-consult, etc...) I would much prefer that we send our recommendations to Council and let them manage the consultative input from the other parties as input to their deliberations when they are deciding to approve the recommendations or not... -ross Liz Williams wrote: BretYou must have misunderstood what was contemplated. As you are aware, there has been much discussion and input from a wide range of stakeholders at this meeting and we are yet to have substantive discussions with the GAC.We are not in a position to release a final Draft Report until consultations have taken place with the other SOs and ACs. In addition, the GNSO IDN Working Group has just begun its work and there are elements of that work that are highly relevant to the new TLDs report as a whole.You are also aware that we are entering the Christmas season and, whilst work will be continuing, it will not be at the current rate. You are also aware that Committee members are committed to two other PDPs.If we can bring the dates forward we will do that but we must ensure that we have adequate clarification of the draft recommendations as they stand -- the Committee needs to do more there; we must ensure we have input from other stakeholders and we must ensure that we, as closely as possible, post documentation that allows sufficient time to consider many other views.Liz ..................................................... Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels +32 2 234 7874 tel +32 2 234 7848 fax +32 497 07 4243 mob On 06 Dec 2006, at 21:21, Bret Fausett wrote:I'm confused. I was under the impression that our report was close tocomplete and that shortly we would be in a position to submit the report to the Board (December 2006-January, 2007). My expectation was that an RFP for new TLDs would be forthcoming in ICANN's Q4 (April-June 2007), with new TLDapplications submitted in ICANN's Q1 (July-October, 2007). Keep in mindBoard Resolution 06.23,* which called upon the GNSO to complete its part ofthe work by January 1, 2007, so that ICANN could move forward withimplementation. Certainly conducting final consultations in Lisbon, at theend of March, is far beyond what I contemplated, and well outside of the Board resolution. If I'm reading the proposal correctly, the dates in this timelinecontemplate three more drafts: the first by 26 January 2007, the second by26 February 2007, and a third and final sometime "[b]etween Lisbon andPuerto Rico meeting." ** That's two too many drafts and at least five months more than necessary. Under the PDP (Annex A to the Bylaws ***), we need toprovide 20 days public comment on the report. 10 days after this comment period, we need to produce a final report, which can be voted on by the Council.My suggestion is that we call the comment period as soon as possible, on thecurrent text or something very close to it. To the extent constituencieshave not yet commented, they can do so in the public comment period. During the 10 day revision period, I recommend that we take upon ourselves, as the Council, the job of producing the next iteration of the report, with Staff assistance as necessary and appropriate. And yes, I'll be replaced soon onthe Council, but I will stay involved, on behalf of the ALAC, in the twoPDPs underway until they wind up. I'm not passing this to someone else. ;-)
|