Re: [wg-c] Deadlines

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	I agree with Milton Mueller, Roeland M.J. Meyer, Petter Rindforth,
Caroline Chicoine and Raul Echeberria that a September 7 deadline is just
too optimistic.  We've got a bunch of interrelated issues here, and I don't
see how we're going to avoid votes (which, as Milton points out, are
time-consuming).

	Even if we did somehow produce a document by September 7, further, there's
no orderly schedule under which we could get it to the ICANN Board in time
for action at the November meeting.  If ICANN were to do anything with this
report at the November meeting, I think it would have to set it out for
comment no later than October 7 or 8, so that it could have its own
three-week comment period — plus a couple of days actually to read the
comments — before its meeting opened on November 2.  But remember that
Javier's original calendar
<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990625.NCwgc.html> contemplates that the
WG's presentation of its report will kick off a three-week comment period,
after which we'll redraft and produce a revised report two weeks later.  It
seems to me that that's a crucial part of the process, and I don't think it
makes sense to lose it.  (Just think about the changes we saw as the WIPO
report went through its successive rounds of comment, and as the Green
Paper gave way to the White Paper.)  So we'd be publishing our final report
on October 12 -- already past the effective deadline, and that's not
counting the time necessary for the NC to consult with its constituencies,
collect comments, and vote. (Javier assigned this an additional 25 days in
his original calendar.)

	Finally, I don't see any point in trying to get this to ICANN in time for
the November meeting.  I want new gTLDs in the root fast.  But I think the
chances are essentially nil that ICANN will do anything related to new
gTLDs until September of *2000*, when (according to ICANN's schedule) the
at-large representatives will have been seated and the Board will have been
reconstituted.

	I like deadlines — they concentrate the mind, and they keep us moving.
But I think September 7 isn't realistic.  I'd suggest a deadline in October
instead.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com

	
At 05:22 PM 8/3/99 +0200, Javier SOLA wrote:
>At 09:13 3/08/99 +0200, Petter Rindforth wrote:
>>Javier and all others, I fully agree that we have to set a new deadline
>although I am not sure that September 7th is enough. We will more likely
>need until September 30.
>
>The original intention was to create a document that can be discussed by
>the ICANN Board at the November meeting. In order to be considered, the
>document should be handed to the Board at least three weeks in advance,
>that is, October 14th.
>
>We need, before that date, three weeks for public comment and,
>realistically, a couple of weeks for the Names Council to work on those
>comments and finalise a report. That is why I was thinking that September
>7th was a good date to hand in the WG C report.
>
>Remember that once the report is in, we will have the three week period
>(Sept 7th to 30th) in which the constituencies will actually evaluate and
>comment on the report, producing input for the Names Council.
>
>Actually, maybe September 9th would be a better date, to keep everything
>going on Thursdays (complete weeks).
>
>The Calendar would be:
>
>August 19th
>Drafting Committees start drafting documents
>
>September 7th
>Report sent to the Names Council by WG C
>
>September 30th
>End of Comments on WG C Report
>
>October 14th
>Report sent to the ICANN Board by the Names Council.
>
>
>
>
>