Re: Process forward [RE: [gnso-idng] restarting discussions on IDN gTLD]

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> ... what gets the gTLD fast track beyond the 
> criticisms that are being used to stall gTLDs in general.

Good question.


> Other questions (perhaps subquestions of the question above):
- would it be for non-Latin scripts only?

> - would it be for IDN gTLDs only
> - would it be only for existing gTLD registries
- would each existing gTLD registry would be allowed to apply for one 
"similar" name
- what changes to the existing registry contracts are necessary

That, and the item I added above, would make it most similar to the 
ccTLD IDN FastTrack.
I make that one museum in a non-Latin script, one cat in a non-Latin 
script, one aero in a non-Latin script, one ... , and one com in a 
non-Latin script.
For those counting, that's ~40 change requests to the IANA root 
arising out of the ccTLD IDN FT process, and ~20 arising from a gTLD 
IDN FT process, if "this" can be called a "gTLD IDN FT", or about 
2/3rds of the budget Thomas Narten suggested was annually available.
> - would applicants have to accept the most stringent of the restrictions 
> being proposed by for new gTLDs (full IRT, no Geo related name of any 
> sort, no word that anyone on earth considers controversial, nothing that 
> has the same meaning or etymology as any exsiting TLD ...)
Do we care? Those that get hung up by objections simply survive the 
objection process or fail. Those to which no objections are offered 
progress. If a "gTLD IDN FT" is like (see above) the ccTLD IDN FT in 
the script, number, and equivalence restrictions, most of these 
restrictions have already been addressed.

> How would this fasttrack combine with the EoI proposed process?
I'm aware of a Board initiated EOI request for comments, but not a 
proposed process.
I'm aware "there is a group of participants that engage in ICANN's 
processes to a greater extent than Internet users generally", who have 
agreed to attempt to restrict competition through presenting a 
resolution to the Board proposing a "EoI process".

I suggest that we ignore the latter, for several reasons, and identify 
a gTLD IDN FT profile as a response to the former, as well as a more 
general gTLD IDN, and the even more general TLD IDN profile, to inform 
the Board.

> I am not against this, but I am not sure I see how it would help.

I've a long note which I'll submit as a critical comment on the 
Board's EOI question to the community. In a nutshell, I don't think 
the EOI motion helped clarify issues. I'm even more skeptical about 
the purpose of a private party "proposed EOI process".

I think the next question isn't so much what about the EOI, its what 
about the restrictions imposed on the ccTLD IDN FT.
 - non-Latin
 - one each (or two for CDNC territories)
 - limited "creep" from the iso3166 alpha-two value into alpha-three 
or other standardized names (for which we have no equivalent 
convenient standards to point to)
 - what changes to the existing registry contracts are necessary

In addition, there is the problem of expanding the number of entities 
holding a distinct IDN delegation in their own right, under a new 
contract.
Are non-Latin scripts to be prioritized? That has been the basis for 
the ccTLD IDN FT, and for what I suggest above for a gTLD IDN FT.
Are unserved populations to be prioritized? That is the foundation 
that the non-Latin requirement is based upon.
I think we can help by suggesting not simply numbers to some EOI 
effort, but specific groups of applications with specific answers to 
"the criticisms that are being used to stall gTLDs in general".

Eric