RE: [council] gTLD registries' paper on new TLds

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@xxxxxxx>]

Jeff, and other fellow councilors

As we have all discussed, it's a more complex problem than merely ISPs, and 
will involve a much needed communications initiative, which we can all either 
complain about, or simply make happen. :-)  I vote for "simply make happen".  

Since the call hasn't been scheduled yet, I suggest that we work on that as a 
priority. I too, thought the call could have taken place by now. I guess we 
were all waiting for someone else. :-)

I was.  It has been a holiday season for many both in the US and now in Europe. 

I'm not much better. I'm off next week to be with my father who is having 
surgery, so a call the following week to work on this would be preferred. IF it 
can only take place this week, I can possibly do a call Wednesday p.m. or 
Friday p.m. 

I really don't think that taking up much time on the Council call is 
productive. The parties who can play a role in this are a very few of the BC 
members, who I am happy to represent and communicate with, the ISPCP, and 
probably the high ed community, who Mark Luker, Educause, will undoubtedly be 
willing to forward any information to. 

When I was on the Evaluation of the new gTLD task force, I suggested then that 
an education effort was needed and didn't get much receptivity from Stuart 
Lynn. That was early days of this problem. We can address this through an 
informal, and formal awareness and outreach notice. 

I'm pretty sure that ISPs and connectivity providers -- and large corporations 
who operate resolvers and routers -- don't want to lose traffic. Let me speak 
for AT&T. We don't.  :-)

MC



-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 3:51 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP; Milton Mueller; Amadeu@xxxxxxxxxx; Neuman,
Jeff
Cc: council@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] gTLD registries' paper on new TLds


I was hoping to get some more substantive responses to the paper that was
presented.  

The registries will revise the introduction of the paper so that it reflects
that there were other ccTLDs added in the past 10-15 years.   

However, the substance of the paper (the failure of many ISPs, application
providers and e-commerce websites, to recognize a number of the new gTLDs)
deserves serious consideration.

I look forward to discussing this at the next meeting.

Thanks.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP [mailto:mcade@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 10:09 PM
To: Milton Mueller; Amadeu@xxxxxxxxxx; Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] gTLD registries' paper on new TLds


Milton,  I can attest that the Evaluation of the new gTLDs Task Force
included highly qualified technical folks. And, yes, for myself at least, as
a member of the TF, I am fully aware of the addition of new ccTLDs to the
Internet over the past few years.  

:-)
Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 5:32 PM
To: Amadeu@xxxxxxxxxx; Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] gTLD registries' paper on new TLds


>>> Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>1990 11  47 
>1991 22  69 
>1992 17  86 
>1993 23 109 
>1994 22 131 
>1995 29 160 
>1996 31 191 
>1997 47 238 

Gosh, I hope adding all those TLDs didn't harm the Internet's stability!
I sure hope that New TLD Evaluation and Planning Task Force takes a long,
hard look at the effects of adding those country codes.

;-)