ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] IDN gTLD Fast Track discussion

  • To: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] IDN gTLD Fast Track discussion
  • From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:02:11 +1000
  • In-reply-to: <C5E82A51.D592%stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <1a7501c9a884$527f1760$f77d4620$@org> <C5E82A51.D592%stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcmoN0MfNEyb/RoDSNyG2TD0ChceSgAdFkS0ABLYRNA=
  • Thread-topic: [council] IDN gTLD Fast Track discussion
Hello Stéphane,

> I actually think it makes a lot of sense to allow 
> non-contentious TLDs a way
> forward before the mainstream new TLD launch, if it means 
> TLDs that present
> more complicated issues get ironed out properly while at the 
> same time not
> delaying the others.

The problem becomes in defining "non-contentious TLDs".

Even IDN-ccTLDs have issues around their contributions to costs and their 
commitment to adhere to IDNA standards.

Every TLD applicant that I have come across claims that their TLD is 
"non-contentious".

ICANN's experience with trying to manage a specific category (Sponsored in 
2004) was not successful.   By setting up one group to go forward early - you 
just increase the commercial incentives around trying to show that your 
application is in that category.

The new gTLD process itself already has three categories - geographic, 
community, and other.

Regards,
Bruce
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>