Re: Purpose & Scope of IDNG WG [RE: [gnso-idng] scope of discussion]

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 10 Apr 2009, at 10:18, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> As soon as we try to mitigate delays of the New gTLD process in a  
> general sense, every interested party is going push for fast tracks  
> of their category of names.  What reason would we have for  
> expediting city names versus brand names or previously applied for  
> gTLDs, etc.?  Every interested group would I am sure argue that  
> there is no reason to delay their category of names.  I understand  
> the motivation in that regard but don't see how we good justify it  
> equitably.

One of the keys here would also be determining what non-controversial  
meant.  In IDN ccTLD FT they managed to limit scope of this to the  
government, internet community and ccTLD holder of the country  
concerned.   As limited as this is, and the council did question this  
limited scope, I do not know how anything could be determined to be  
non-controversial on a global scope.  I am sure that for any IDN GTLD  
that someone proposes we could find someone to object and make it  
controversial.  This would especially be the case in the event of an  
IDN GTLD meant to challenge the business case of an IDN ccTLD.  In  
that case we would need some sort of deliberation cycle which of  
course would mean it was no longer non controversial.
One could argue that IDN geo TLDs might be non-controversial because  
they can get government endorsement.  But then why is one less so then  
another.  And if cities are using these things to boast tourism or  
boast their international presence to get some sort of decision like  
the scheduling of a major conference or sporting event, would no other  
cities be able to complain about their competitor city getting a TLD  
before they do.
a.