RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs

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

Terry,

As I know you are aware, from a purely DNS perspective, an IDN TLD is no 
different than an ASCII TLD, so I assume your concerns go beyond the DNS.  What 
are the operational issues for which you have concerns?

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry L Davis, P.E. [mailto:tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:29 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; 'Tim Ruiz'
> Cc: 'GNSO Council'
> Subject: RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs
> 
> Chuck
> 
> My preference would probably be to see the gTLDs have some 
> time in service, maybe a month, to work out any unforeseen 
> operational issues before the IDN gTLDs come online.
> 
> If the gTLDs were functioning already then having the IDN 
> gTLDs and the IDN ccTLDs, come online at the same time 
> wouldn't concern me as much.  Likewise if the IDN ccTLDs were 
> functioning, I wouldn't be as concerned with the gTLDs and 
> the IDN gTLDs coming online at the same time.
> 
> To me, it just allows separation of the operational issues 
> associated with each.
> 
> Take care
> Terry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 10:36 AM
> To: Terry L Davis, P.E.; Stéphane Van Gelder; Tim Ruiz
> Cc: GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs
> 
> 
> 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
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>