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

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

Thanks for that suggestion Edmon. That would do me fine.

Stéphane


Le 14/04/09 03:05, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>