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: Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=JfYYAq3pkIEcjn63wajifnZYqOvD3V/rCKgMbeLemc0KaREKXq9mkJeDXIjc93osya3eieYEWt0+evz1KqmXL3pt8wp0h+UW87xKzGFlTJlks6xe2FL1AXhlXXAUVQ1H2nSrD24CUs7nKNyYyFtkd9v89dwg8fbgIA1KYjN94hc=;
  • In-reply-to: <30ED909B-1047-4D55-BAB4-A59A9FFA8A90@acm.org>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I would hope this issue can be addressed before LA so that the
summary that will then be circulated reflect as accurately as
possible the intent of the council. For practical reasons,
chances are that the larger public will eventually rely on the
summary more than the original, and we wouldn't want to send a
misleading message.


--- Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.
> a.

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