ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Summary for New gTLDs Workshop at ICANN LA Meeting

  • To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Summary for New gTLDs Workshop at ICANN LA Meeting
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:56:42 +0200
  • Cc: liaison6c <liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <470DE873.9050504@icann.org>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <470DE873.9050504@icann.org>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On 11 okt 2007, at 11.10, Denise Michel wrote:

<New gtlds workshop document.doc>

I want to point out that this document contains a recommendation, on page 13 #20.c, by the staff that there may need to be sub-rounds as part of the new GTLD process.

As far as my memory goes, this is _not_ in any way a part of the GNSO recommendation or implementation guidelines. And while I admit I do not understand how such a sub-round would work it think it runs counter to the notion of a round as was defined by the Council.

In my understanding, within a round, while all applications would be treated as simultaneous in regards to name contention, for all other purposes applications would be processed individually on a first come first served basis. While this means that the first aspects of processing, that is determining validity and checking on name conflicts would be done during the initial part of the process in what could be called a batch mode, once the open call for applications was closed and processing began in earnest on valid applications for which there was no name contention, they would be done on a first come first served, and first completed first deployed basis.

I do not understand how the notion of sub-rounds would work within such a construct.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>