[gnso-idng] Scope of IDNG WG (if formed)

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Stéphane,

As mentioned in the earlier thread at the council, I am not against the
discussion of geographic names :-)
The focus of this particular discussion however is IDN gTLDs.

> What I mean is
> that you can have an IDN gTLD for a City (and that would IMO warrant a
> fast-track in the face of undue delays to the general gTLD program) but
also
> for a product name for example. In this second example, I don't see how a
> fast-track can be justified for this sort of name.

On this particular point, I think it should be a good topic for discussion
of the details at the IDNG WG.
In general, I agree that we should develop a reasonably tight scope for the
IDN gTLD fast track if it is to be implemented successfully.

I had proposed the following with regards to the scope (of the WG) as
follows:

> > The IDNG WG should at a minimum address the following issues in its
> > reports:
> > - Definition of a limited scope for applicable IDN gTLDs for the Fast
> > Track
> > - Requirements for and evaluation of applicants for the Fast Track
> > - Consideration for requirements of rights protection mechanisms
> > - Where contention arise, how such contention could be addressed
> > - Conditions under which an application may be deferred to the full New
> > gTLD

Perhaps we could add a more specific item to address your concern:

- Types of IDN gTLDs acceptable for the IDN gTLD Fast Track


Edmon