[registrars] RE: Issue with the "Initial Report on new gTLDs"

[Nevett, Jonathon]

Thanks Bhavin for raising the issue.

I agree that "differentiated" should be more clearly defined in the
report.  We don't want a repeat of the competing interpretations that we
saw with the Whois purpose issue.

I encourage everyone to provide additional comments to the list and to
our councilors prior to the August 29th Task Force meeting in Amsterdam.

Thanks.

Jon 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Stahura
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 3:01 PM
To: H1L174; Bruce Tonkin
Cc: Registrars Constituency
Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: Issue with the "Initial Report on new
gTLDs"

Then please help define "differentiated" better.
Don't leave the defining of it up to the eye of the beholder or
whatever.
Put it in the document.
The question is: does "differentiated" refer to the business model or
the TLD string or something else? 

My reading of 
"Applicants (for new gTLDs) must offer a clearly differentiated domain
name space with respect to defining the purpose of the application"
makes me think its about the business model, not about the TLD string.
I think this for a number of reasons, but one is because obviously its
probably not a good idea to put in ".kom", and if that's what it meant
it could have been written much clearer.

Therefore, though Bruce says
"...But .brochure as an alternative for .info, or .web as an alternative
for .com would be fine." Bruce's statement is not congruent with what's
in the document, but probably is congruent with what we want. 

If it's not better defined in the document, we'll think we got what we
want but we won't really have.... again.  


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 5:36 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin
Cc: Registrars Constituency
Subject: Re: [registrars] RE: Issue with the "Initial Report on new
gTLDs"

Hello Bhavin, all,

I will be attending the first two days of the meeting. Every feedback
on the recommendations will be very appreciated and helpful.

Best,

tom

Am 09.08.2006 schrieb Bruce Tonkin:
>  Hello Bhavin,
> 
> From a process point of view - all the recommendations will be revised
> following public comment in a meeting in Amsterdam from 29-31 August.

> 
> Right now any comments and wording suggestions will be extremely
useful
> as input to that meeting.
> 
> I believe that Ross Rader will be attending the meeting as the main
GNSO
> Council registrar rep.  I will be attending, but will be chairing the
> process - so as chair I will not be advocating a particular position -
> but rather seeking to identify consensus positions.    I think Tom
> Keller may be able to attend for part of the meeting.
> 
> It may also be useful to have a registrar teleconference prior to that
> meeting to get broader input.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> 
> 

Gruss,

tom

(__)        
(OO)_____  
(oo)    /|\	A cow is not entirely full of
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
  w w w  w