RE: [council] IDN gTLD Fast Track discussion

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think Stéphane is on the money here.

In my view the solution, sought by Edmon, is to break out the non contentious 
IDN gTLD's (or to assume that none of them will be contentious - which is a 
horrible assumption).

I am not sure you can 'piece meal' the issue. Clearly the retarding factor is 
the IP and Trademark issues. Are we assuming these will not exist in an IDN 
gTLD?

If it is plausible to pull the TLD's not infringing on the issues above in IDN 
gTLD's then surely the same can be said for non IDN gTLD's.

If you want to push this then perhaps a "non contentious gTLD Fast Track" that 
is both inclusive of IDN's and non IDN strings is the solution... I for one, 
will not be defining "non contentious".

I think the Board has previously illustrated a propensity to want to avoid this 
situation which seemed reasonable then and still seems reasonable to now.

Let's take care of the IP and Trademark issues "quick sticks" and move onward 
and upward! 

Adrian Kinderis


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Friday, 20 March 2009 8:15 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Edmon Chung; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] IDN gTLD Fast Track discussion


Thanks Chuck.

If the issue is competitive advantage, then I don't understand the rationale
behind pursuing only one fast-track program, for a very specific category of
TLDs, and not others.

This would give IDN gTLDs a competitive advantage.

So in my view, the issue really is one of complication rather than
competitive advantage because, whatever the fast-track, if there is one then
by definition the applicants eligible for it are given a competitive
advantage or at least they get the possibility of an early start.

The reason why these fast-tracks are being looked into has more to do with
the idea that "simple" TLDs shouldn't be delayed by "complicated" ones as I
see it.

But I agree that at this point, you really need to have a clear measure of
what makes a "simple" TLD. One presumes it is a TLD which poses no real
validation issues, but how can you tell? There are some classes of TLDs that
do seem to fit this category, including GeoTLDs, but once again, specifics
are hard to define here.

Stéphane


Le 19/03/09 20:17, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>