Re: [council] IDN gTLD Fast Track discussion

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Understood. Thanks for that Chuck.

Stéphane


Le 20/03/09 15:44, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

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