RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs

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

Chuck/Adrian

It may work perfectly well but thirty years of operational experience has
taught me never to stack very complex changes to occur simultaneously when I
don't have to.  Way too many times, Murphy has had the last language.  The
simultaneous timing just makes my operational nerves tingle.

Take care
Terry

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:56 PM
To: Terry L Davis, P.E.; 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; 'Tim Ruiz'
Cc: 'GNSO Council'
Subject: RE: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs

It is also fair to not assume that just because they go into the root at the
same time that the Registries would live at the same time (which to me would
be the greater issue were that to happen).

The is no technical issue with respect to the simultaneous addition of these
TLD (IDN or otherwise) to the root.

Adrian



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Terry L Davis, P.E.
Sent: Friday, 19 December 2008 6:29 AM
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
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>