RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs

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

Yes Terry, I believe it is. Because of the pent up demand for IDN TLDs, I 
believe that the first to market will have a huge competitive advantage.  
Considering the fact that GNSO registrants subsidize the ccNSO and the fast 
track process, I think it would be wrong to do so to the detriment of GNSO 
registrants.  One example: In the case of IDN ccTLDs, if a global company wants 
to protect its brand, it would have to register in every IDN ccTLD; it would be 
much more effective to register an IDN gTLD.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry L Davis, P.E. [mailto:tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 10:43 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; 'Tim Ruiz'
> Cc: 'GNSO Council'
> Subject: RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs
> 
> 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
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>