Re: [wg-c] Deadlines

[Javier SOLA <javier@aui.es>]

I will consult with the Names Council on deadlines. 

The major change that I see is to delay the date in which the WG's report
will be presented to the ICANN Board. Instead of presenting it for the
November meeting, the Names Council would present it to the Board at the
next meeting after that (roughly three month afterwards).

There is no rationality behind the Board not deciding anything related to
this Working Group at any meeting before September 2000. September 2000 is
just a final deadline for the process of transfering powers to ICANN.

Part of the results expected from this WG is a Call for Tenders for new
registries. The Board could very well post the call for tender after they
receive it and approve it, and give -at the beginning of the year 2000- a
few months to answer. This would allow new domains to be effectively
included in the root sometime during the year 2000.

Javier


At 14:46 3/08/99 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>	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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>