RE: [council] IDN gTLD Fast Track discussion

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

I can't speak for Bruce but I suspect his 'other' category is the 'open' 
category.  The Guidebook doesn't actually treat 'geographic' as a class in the 
same sense as 'community-based' or 'open' gTLD but Staff has expanded the 
restrictions on geographic names beyond what the GNSO recommended and there is 
still discussions between the Board and the GAC, but I think that mainly 
concerns 2nd-level geographic names.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:19 AM
> To: Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] IDN gTLD Fast Track discussion
> 
> 
> Hi Bruce,
> 
> I agree there is a clear difficulty in defining a 
> non-contentious TLD. That is what I was saying in my previous 
> email, and trying to do so clearly has us running the risk of 
> ending up with "purposely-designed" non contentious TLDs so 
> that their applicants can go first.
> 
> However, I also think there is a logic behind the class or 
> "type" breakdown that Edmun and others have suggested. The 
> problem, once again, is that everyone tends to preach for 
> their own religion and wants their class of choice to be 
> recognized as the one to go first.
> 
> There was a lot of talk about types of TLDs in Mexico and I 
> don't think we can simply brush those ideas aside, even 
> though once again I agree that they do create a lot of 
> potential issues.
> 
> On your final comment, I was not aware that there are 3 
> categories already.
> I thought a TLD could only be a community or open 
> application, i.e. if you're not a community based 
> application, you're open. Can you tell me a little more about 
> this third "other" class please? How are the applications 
> that are neither community nor open and thus, I suppose, go 
> into this other class, defined?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> Le 20/03/09 02:02, « Bruce Tonkin » 
> <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> 
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>