<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
I'm not sure that will be so.
A lot of corporates already had plans for a TLD in the pipeline before the
Canon announcement.
They may now feel better inclined to go public, but I don't think the Canon
thing will have a significant on volumes.
Stéphane
Le 31 mars 2010 à 05:25, Terry L Davis, P.E. a écrit :
> PS: It is possible that Canon’s announcement that they will seek “Canon” as a
> TLD, may drastically change the projected volumes. I suspect that their
> direct competitors will have to look hard at how they respond. Then you
> could have the ripple effect setting in…
>
> From: Terry L Davis, P.E. [mailto:tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 8:19 PM
> To: 'Adrian Kinderis'; 'Olga Cavalli'; 'Rafik Dammak'
> Cc: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Tim Ruiz'; 'GNSO Council'
> Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD
> APPLICANT SUPPORT
>
> Adrian
>
> I don’t think we are in major disagreement.
>
> I wasn’t online for Nairobi and haven’t reviewed Kurt’s presentation. A
> gated process was one option to jump-start TLD registration. If they can
> handle the volume they expect, then we need to continue on that path; my
> impressions from Seoul and between was that they really didn’t know what
> volume they could process reasonably thus I continued to look at the option
> for a gated process to start the TLDs.
>
> I just want to see some way for us to start accepting and processing
> applications as soon as possible. Nothing ever solves problems as well as
> forcing your operations staff to inititate new processes/capabilities; until
> they have to deal with it daily as a routine event, it is a mental exercise.
>
> Take care
> Terry
>
> From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 8:05 PM
> To: Terry L Davis, P.E.; 'Olga Cavalli'; 'Rafik Dammak'
> Cc: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Tim Ruiz'; 'GNSO Council'
> Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD
> APPLICANT SUPPORT
>
> Terry,
>
> I am dead against a “gated process” at this late stage. If the GNSO Council
> wanted that it should have considered them in the original recommendations.
>
> We are close enough now where staff have made the appropriate contingencies
> to handle the projected volume as described by Kurt in Nairobi. Changing this
> now (like the EOI process) will create more problems than it solves. I do not
> even consider that we debate it.
>
> This approach would therefore encompass NOT allowing for “disadvantaged”
> applicants to be carved out – which I am lead to believe is NOT the purpose
> nor one of the possible outcomes of the Support WG anyway.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Adrian Kinderis
>
>
>
> From: Terry L Davis, P.E. [mailto:tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, 31 March 2010 1:46 PM
> To: Adrian Kinderis; 'Olga Cavalli'; 'Rafik Dammak'
> Cc: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Tim Ruiz'; 'GNSO Council'
> Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD
> APPLICANT SUPPORT
>
> Council
>
> I’m going to be a bit cross-wise here.
>
> To be honest, I’d rather see us working on a “gated process” to begin moving
> TLD applications forward, even if it is only going to be 1 or 2 per month.
> Until we start accepting and processing the TLD applications, we have no real
> idea what requirements for staff and the associated timelines will be.
> Getting the application process moving seems key to me…
>
> Working on yet another set of processes that will take considerable time to
> sort out for “dis-advantage” (meaning is open to me anyway) applicants would
> only seem to add to the initial opening of the TLD process. ??
>
> Just my thoughts, please feel free to return other options/opinions; I’m very
> interested in hearing them.
>
> Take care
> Terry
>
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 7:25 PM
> To: Olga Cavalli
> Cc: Rafik Dammak; Gomes, Chuck; Tim Ruiz; GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD
> APPLICANT SUPPORT
>
> I am not sure that helps the discussion.
>
> It is frustrating as a councillor and professional with limited time to have
> to keep poking...
>
> Can you please elaborate as to why this is not a friendly amendment.
>
> Adrian Kinderis
>
>
>
> From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, 31 March 2010 12:21 PM
> To: Adrian Kinderis
> Cc: Rafik Dammak; Gomes, Chuck; Tim Ruiz; GNSO Council
> Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD
> APPLICANT SUPPORT
>
> Hi,
> I do not see it as a friendly amendment.
> Regards
> Olga
>
> 2010/3/30 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Olga?
>
> Do you see this as a friendly amendment?
>
> Adrian Kinderis
>
>
>
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Rafik Dammak
> Sent: Wednesday, 31 March 2010 3:33 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Tim Ruiz; GNSO Council
> Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD
> APPLICANT SUPPORT
>
> Hello,
>
> unfortunately, I cannot see it as friendly amendment.
>
> Regards
>
> Rafik
>
> 2010/3/30 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Rafik/Olga,
>
> Do you accept this as a friendly amendment?
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:20 PM
> > To: GNSO Council
> > Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING
> > GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
> >
> >
> > Since it seems to be agreed that what is intended is to look
> > for funding opportunities outside of ICANN's own budget to
> > possibly resolve this concern, I would like to make that
> > evident in the motion and propose this friendly amendment:
> >
> > Add the following to the first Resolve:
> >
> > keeping in mind ICANN's requirement to recover the costs of
> > new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs
> >
> > So the first Resolve would read:
> >
> > Resolved, that the GNSO Council supports the formation of a
> > joint SO/AC working group to respond to the Board's request
> > by developing a sustainable approach to providing support to
> > new gTLD applicants requiring assistance in applying for and
> > operating new gTLDS, keeping in mind ICANN's requirement to
> > recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going
> > services to new gTLDs;
> >
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP
> > ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
> > From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:43 am
> > To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Council GNSO
> > <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I want to submit motion to approve joint SO/AC council
> > working group on new gTLD applicant support the motion
> > document is attached.
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|