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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@speakeasy.net] 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@verisign.com] 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@speakeasy.net] 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@indom.com] 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@verisign.com> 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@godaddy.com] 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@verisign.com> Date: Wed, December 17, 2008 7:37 am To: "GNSO Council" <council@gnso.icann.org>
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