RE: [council] IDN gTLD Fast Track discussion

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stephane,

Please see my responses below.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:59 AM
> To: Edmon Chung; 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: Re: [council] IDN gTLD Fast Track discussion
> 
> 
> Edmon,
> 
> Would it not be difficult to argue for an IDN gTLD fast track 
> if no such mechanism is also planned for other 
> non-contentious subcategories of new TLDs?

Chuck: The reason for considering the possibility of an IDN gtLD fast track is 
to deal with the possibility that the IDN fast track ccTLDs will be ready 
before the gTLD process and hence to remove any competitive advantage that the 
ccTLDs might gain if they went first.
> 
> There was a lot of discussion on the possibility of 
> increasing the number of TLD categories in Mexico and my 
> feeling was that staff wasn't in favour. I could be wrong of course...
> 
> 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.

Chuck: The issue as I understand it is primarily competitive advantage, not 
level of complication.  Besides, how would we know in advance what is 
contentious and not?

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> 
> 
> Le 19/03/09 12:17, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> 
> > 
> > Hi Everyone,
> > 
> > Following up on the discussion we had during our wrap up meeting in 
> > Mexico, would like to share some thoughts on a possible IDN 
> gTLD Fast Track concept.
> > From the discussion at that meeting as well as conversations during 
> > and after Mexico, it seems like there are a few items that 
> could form 
> > a starting point for constructive discussion towards a 
> possible IDN gTLD Fast Track:
> > 
> > 1. The New gTLD schedule should not be delayed by an IDN gTLD Fast 
> > Track 2. The IDN ccTLD Fast Track schedule should not be 
> delayed by an 
> > IDN gTLD Fast Track 3. An IDN gTLD Fast Track should be viewed as a 
> > backup plan should the New gTLD schedule be further delayed 
> 4. Work on 
> > an IDN gTLD Fast Track should begin in preparation for the 
> case that 
> > the New gTLD schedule is further delayed 5. The IDN gTLD 
> Fast Track, 
> > if implemented, should:
> >             - follow closely the process of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track
> >             - aim to introduce "a limited number of 
> non-contentious" IDN gTLDs
> >             - be based on the GNSO New gTLD Final Report, including 
> > the IDN WG outcomes report (i.e. should not require 
> additional policy 
> > development)
> >             - encourage stronger protection of rights of others
> > 
> > I think we would be allocating some time to discuss the 
> issue in our 
> > upcoming conference call meeting.  Would love to get some 
> feedback and 
> > thoughts on the above items before our meeting.
> > 
> > Wondering what people think about the above points...
> > 
> > Edmon
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>