[council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT

Stéphane Van Gelder stephane.vangelder at indom.com
Wed Mar 31 10:56:43 UTC 2010


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 at speakeasy.net] 
> 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 at ausregistry.com.au] 
> 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 at speakeasy.net] 
> 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 at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] 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 at gmail.com] 
> 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 at ausregistry.com.au>
> Olga?
>  
> Do you see this as a friendly amendment?
>  
> Adrian Kinderis
> 
>  
>  
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] 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 at verisign.com>
> 
> Rafik/Olga,
> 
> Do you accept this as a friendly amendment?
> 
> Chuck
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> > [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] 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 at gmail.com>
> > Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:43 am
> > To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>, Council GNSO
> > <council at gnso.icann.org>
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> 
>  
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100331/8edf4beb/attachment.html>


More information about the council mailing list