RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs

["Terry L Davis, P.E." <tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck

Is that really a problem?  The TLD intro alone without the IDNs seems
reasonably daunting from a technical viewpoint.

Take care
Terry

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 12:52 PM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Tim Ruiz
Cc: GNSO Council
Subject: RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs


Understand Stephane.  But even with that understanding there is still the
chance that the fast track IDN ccTLD process could be ready considerably
before the gTLD is process is ready and that their process will be much
shorter. So the risk of a significant gap is there. 

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:40 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Tim Ruiz
> Cc: GNSO Council
> Subject: Re: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs
> 
> Just a heads-up on the IDN issue. The responses recently 
> published by ICANN to the questions asked in the Cairo public forum (
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-15dec08-en.
> htm) clearly states that it WILL be possible to request an 
> IDN gTLD at start-up, i.e.
> When the first round of gTLD applications is opened.
> 
> It's something I hadn't seen stated quite so clearly before 
> anywhere else so I thought I'd just point it out.
> 
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> 
> 
> Le 17/12/08 19:41, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> 
> > 
> > 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>