RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The communications period recommendation was an Implementation
Guideline, not one of the 19 recommendations.  What did the Board
approve, the whole package or just the recommendations?  Regardless, the
Board will have to ultimately approve the final implementation plan; I
believe that is estimated for May.

One of the biggest issues of concern from a GNSO perspective is the
possible gap between the introduction of fast track IDN ccTLDs and IDN
gTLDs, especially with regard to scripts that are used for fast track
IDN ccTLDs.  There are several things that might help reduce that gap:
1) continue to advocate that the two processes (g's and fast track cc's)
happen at the same time; 2) reduce gTLD delays as suggested by my motion
or something similar; 3) allow for a fast track for IDN gTLDs for
scripts that correspond to fast track IDN ccTLDs.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 12:34 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs
> 
> May sound strange coming from me since I supported this idea 
> initially, but after all the comments that have been 
> submitted (still reading them) and the criticisms that have 
> been made, is it wise for us to try and hurry this up in any way?
> 
> And a couple of procedural questions:
> 1) What is the threshold for Council approval?
> 2) Will the Board have to also approve this?
> 
> 
> Tim 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, December 17, 2008 7:37 am
> To: "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Avri,
>  
> I just realized that the attached motion regarding the 
> 4-month communication period that I submitted on 21 November 
> has been left off the agenda for our Council meeting tomorrow.
>  
> Chuck
> 
> 
> 
>