Notice of Motion

[Adam Peake]

Very good.

But as the Board have decided to do nothing again, can expect it will
get nowhere.

Ask ALAC for support?

Adam



<http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-13oct03.htm>

Discussion of New sTLDs RFP

Mr. Twomey reviewed for the Board comments of broad interest received
on the draft RFP, and considerations raised by the community and
Board members on the creation of new sTLDs and new TLDs generally.
Significant issues raised included whether to limit a new round for
creation of new sTLDs to prior applicants, or allow a wider
participant group in the application process, and what timeline for
the consideration of new sTLDs, and eventually new generic TLDs was
feasible and responsible in light of work to be done. A suggestion
was that gTLD specific issues be set aside until these issues could
be reviewed and examined in detail, expert analysis could be
undertaken and community input received. Further, it was noted that
the nature of TLD relationships with ICANN was a structure under much
debate at present, and deserved a better understanding of the goals
of the parties prior to expanding the number of these relationships.
Board members remarked on the significant staffing constraints for
ICANN at present, and the foreseen lack of an ability for ICANN to
both oversee a round of new sTLD applications, and also invest
significant resources and time in gathering and analyzing data on
gTLD issues.

The Board noted the lengthy list of tasks set forth in ICANN¹s new
MoU with the Department of Commerce entered into on 17 September
specifically called for the development of a strategy and process for
the creation of new TLDs by September 2004. In particular, the board
debated the wisdom in moving ahead with the creation of new TLDs at
this time, in light of the need to shortly commence a full scale
review of policy in this area. A brief debate ensued among Board
members as to the appropriate set of issues that should be included
in a review and development of policy relating to the creation of new
TLDs. Board members voiced concerns that many of the TLDs created
during the 2000 round were still struggling with myriad acceptance
and distribution issues, and that these issues should be carefully
examined and addressed to the extent possible prior to considering
the creation of new TLDs on a large-scale basis.

Discussion ensued among the Board members; in particular, board
members focused on the short time frame set forth in the new MoU for
the development of strategy and policy in this area, and concerns
that any action on sTLDs at present would detract from that effort,
and possibly result in an discordant result. In summarizing the views
expressed on the topic, Mr. Cerf noted the discussion among the Board
did not seem supportive of moving forward with a limited round of new
sTLDs at this time. The Board did express a cohesive interest in
moving forward with development of strategy and policy on TLDs
generally, encompassing both sTLDs and gTLDs, on as expedited a
process as feasible.

Board members noted an appreciation of the importance to the
community of this topic, and the intent to make a statement to the
community on the Board¹s views on the topic as soon possible.

---


At 3:31 PM -0400 10/22/03, Milton Mueller wrote:
>This motion is the beginning of a policy development process.
>If the GNSO passes this request, then ICANN staff is obligated to
>produce an issues report, and once it does that a PDP can begin.
>(Take note, prospective GNSO Council members of the future!)
>
>Why did I mention the MoU? Just to whack ICANN's management
>on the head a bit. To point out that it is something they agreed to
>do, and yet have taken no action on.
>
>>>>  Marc Schneiders <marc at schneiders.org> 10/21/03 02:54PM >>>
>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, at 10:57 [=GMT-0400], Milton Mueller wrote:
>
>>  This motion is intended to be considered at the Carthage
>>  Meeting:
>>
>>  "In order to facilitate compliance with Section II.C.8 of the
>  > Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of
>>  Commerce and ICANN, the GNSO Council requests that the Staff
>>  Manager produce an Issues Report on the creation and implementation
>>  of a regularly scheduled procedure and objective selection criteria for
>>  new TLD registries."
>
>In case we are to discuss this motion on this list before the meeting
>(which very few of us will be able to attend):
>
>1. Why is the MoU in the text? I know ICANN cannot decide new TLDs on
>its own. Still, it now has a 3 year contract. The problem is not the
>MoU or the US Gov, is it? The problem is that ICANN does not set up a
>procedure. Why emphasize the MoU?
>
>2. I would like to emphasize more that it is a long term thing. A
>procedure that is valid for 3 years. So that also orgs have enough
>time to apply. Not just companies, that can hire lots of people to do
>things fast.
>
>For the rest, I am all for it. We should try to open the name space
>ASAP.
>
>  >


--