RE: [council] IDN gTLD Fast Track discussion

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Personally, if there can be a fast-track for so-called ccTLD IDNs I
don't see why there can't be one for gTLD IDNs. But the only way I
really see it working is if it only applied to existing gTLDs, the same
way the current fast-track applies to existing ccTLDs. Neither should be
for completely new concepts. Is that what you intended Edmon?

Some other issues I see:

1. How many languages would each gTLD be able to fast-track? 
2. Does everyone agree on what each gTLD stands for? For example, is
.com for commercial, commerce, or company?
3. How will potential conflicts be resolved, between .biz and .com for
example?

I think those are solvable problems. And if the true goal of the
fast-track is to meet "pressing needs" and "near-term demand" for IDN
domain names, why not include the existing gTLDs for IDNs that can
clearly be indentified as applying to them and would clearly generate
objections if anyone else tried to apply for them? Why would or should
it be limited to ccTLDs?

Tim 
 
  -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] IDN gTLD Fast Track discussion
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, March 20, 2009 9:56 am
To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bruce Tonkin
<Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Council GNSO
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


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
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>