RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

FWIW, I would support Chuck's second motion if I could be on the call. I
would have to abstain on the first one. There are recent factors that I
would first want time to discuss with the RrC before voting. Those
include the public comment that I am still trying to get through, and
some of Staff's answers to the Cairo questions that were just
published.

Tim
Sent from Go Daddy Mobile Mail.

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, December 18, 2008 9:22 am
> To: "Terry L Davis, P.E." <tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,        Stéphane Van
> Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>,        "Tim Ruiz"
> <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 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
> > > >> 
> > > >> 
> > > >> 
> > > >> 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> >