RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs

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

Terry,

I am not proposing this but am curious how you would react to doing IDN TLDs 
(cc fast track & IDN gTLDs) first?  In other words a fast track for both IDN 
ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs.  IDN gTLDs could be limited to scripts for which there 
are applications for fast track IDN ccTLDs.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry L Davis, P.E. [mailto:tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 12:52 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; 'Tim Ruiz'
> Cc: 'GNSO Council'
> Subject: RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs
> 
> Chuck
> 
> Point taken but technician hat still gives me some nerves 
> about the initial wave of new TLDs coinciding with the IDN release.
> 
> Take care
> Terry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 7:22 AM
> To: Terry L Davis, P.E.; Stéphane Van Gelder; Tim Ruiz
> Cc: GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs
> 
> 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
> > > >> 
> > > >> 
> > > >> 
> > > >> 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>