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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stephane,


Thank you but you've managed not to suggest what the advantage is that 
you seek to avoid, and what the market is in which this advantage 
might exist.

Would it be reasonable to conclude from your comment that you are also 
opposed to the position of record of the GNSO, or at least the RySG, 
that, except for the ccTLD IDN FT, that IDN offering by the ccTLDs and 
the gTLDs occur roughly at the same time, to minimize the "first to 
market advantage" (obviously, not in the same sense as you use the 
term), because that position distinguishes IDN gTLDs from ASCII gTLDs, 
and could, as a "track", result in applications for IDN gTLDs being 
accepted prior to applications for ASCII gTLDs?
I believe that was your initial statement, and I simply want to know 
if you're opposed to the coupling of the cc and g IDN offerings, and 
favor either (a) no gTLD IDN until gTLD ASCII or (b) no ccTLD IDN 
until gTLD IDN and gTLD ASCII.
Thank you for your patience. I won't ask anything else, no matter how 
curious I am.
Eric

Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> I think what I mean is fairly clear. That no category of applicant should be 
> given an application window before others. What happens once the application 
> window is open for all obviously then depends on the specifics of each 
> application and the validation process.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stéphane
>
> Le 23 nov. 2009 à 14:12, Eric Brunner-Williams a écrit :
>
> > Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> > > Sorry, I should have said "having some applicants be allowed to apply before 
> > > others".
> > Could you suggest a rational, as "first to market advantage" will exist where 
> > two or more applications are fully evaluated, contracts entered, unless all the 
> > associated DNS data is added to the root as a single unit of change.
> >
> >
> > Or do you mean both "apply before others" _and_ "delegated before others"?
> >
> >
> > Or do you mean the "first to market advantage" to be just the act of submitting 
> > an application?
> >
> >
> > If the "first to market advantage" arises simply from the act of submitting an 
> > application, what is that advantage? In what market?
> >
> >
> > Eric
> >
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Stéphane
> > > Le 23 nov. 2009 à 13:37, Eric Brunner-Williams a écrit :
> > > > Stephane,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the clarification.
> > > >
> > > > Its my experience that the round in 2000-2002, having only 7-10 applicants, 3 
> > > > of type sTLD (aero, coop, museum), and 4 of type gTLD (biz, info, name, pro), 
> > > > was not executed to avoid sequential delegation and sequential launches.
> > > >
> > > > How can "some applicants [] go before others" be prevented?
> > > >
> > > > Eric
> > > >
> > > > Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> > > > > Eric,
> > > > > Seems I really must try and make my emails clearer ;)
> > > > > I am not in favor of a system which would allow some applicants to go before 
> > > > > others and hence gain a first-to-market advantage.
> > > > > Hope that is clearer.
> > > > > Stéphane
> > > > > Le 22 nov. 2009 à 15:15, Eric Brunner-Williams a écrit :
> > > > > > Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> > > > > > > Edmon,
> > > > > > > Your track A/track B idea is interesting.
> > > > > > > I maintain that track A as you suggest it requires that the general idea of 
> > > > > > > tracks be accepted under the new gTLD program. I cannot see where the only 
> > > > > > > track is an IDN track and other categories have to wait until the DAG is 
> > > > > > > finalised.
> > > > > > Are you arguing for "more tracks" or against "language as a track"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Track B. This is a different topic, but it does tie into new gTLDs in general 
> > > > > > > of course as even if they were based on existing gTLDs, the IDN TLDs referenced 
> > > > > > > would constitute a new TLD.  That being so, it will be difficult IMO to make a 
> > > > > > > case for the early release of IDN versions of existing gTLDs, as that would be 
> > > > > > > giving entities who already have the advantage of being on the market a 
> > > > > > > first-to-market advantage for new gTLDs.
> > > > > > Are you arguing for "more TLDs" or for "no more TLDs until an unknown set of 
> > > > > > conditions are satisfied"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eric
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Stéphane
> > > > > > > Le 21 nov. 2009 à 22:49, Edmon Chung a écrit :
> > > > > > > > First of all, I sort of agree with Bertrand (GAC) when he said, perhaps it
> > > > > > > > is not so much about "fast" track, but just "track differentiation".  The
> > > > > > > > point is, what would be useful may be to have a focused discussion on IDN
> > > > > > > > gTLDs in parallel with other discussions with new gTLDs in general, i.e. to
> > > > > > > > discuss them in separate tracks such that each track would not hold back the
> > > > > > > > other.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Based on that, and the question of getting "beyond the criticisms that are
> > > > > > > > being used to stall gTLDs in general", I therefore sort of proposed a dual
> > > > > > > > track approach for IDN gTLDs earlier in the thread:
> > > > > > > >  1. IDNG Track A: IDN gTLDs operated as completely new gTLDs
> > > > > > > > - The new IDN gTLD will accept registrations completely separate from any
> > > > > > > > existing gTLD
> > > > > > > > - This track would need to address the overarching issues
> > > > > > > > - Focused discussion on IDN may (or may not) make resolving the issues more
> > > > > > > > effective
> > > > > > > > - Result of the discussion may (or may not) merge the process back with the
> > > > > > > > full new gTLD process (or "track")
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2. IDNG Track B: IDN gTLDs operated in accordance with existing gTLDs
> > > > > > > > - Only for existing gTLDs, but can be objected to by prospective IDN gTLD
> > > > > > > > applicant
> > > > > > > > - Existing gTLD registry must serve the same zonefile under the IDN gTLD
> > > > > > > > (even though the IDN TLD itself would be a separate NS delegation at the
> > > > > > > > root) OR offer registration only to the same registrant OR implement other
> > > > > > > > registration policies to achieve the same
> > > > > > > > - Where objection is received and not resolved, then the application should
> > > > > > > > move to Track A above (that is the part where I proposed the "confusingly
> > > > > > > > similar" test)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Both IDN Track A and Track B can proceed together and in fact can continue
> > > > > > > > to exist.  Track B can essentially be an ongoing process, even for future
> > > > > > > > new gTLDs.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On the topic of limitation on number of script/language, first of all, the
> > > > > > > > IDN ccTLD Fast Track did not set a numerical limit, but rather, it is based
> > > > > > > > on the number of official languages ("official language" in its general
> > > > > > > > sense) in the cc locality.  For gTLDs, the issue would be tricky if a
> > > > > > > > numerical limit is set and could raise technical, fairness as well as
> > > > > > > > political issues.  Take ".Asia" for example, it would not be appropriate to
> > > > > > > > pick Chinese over Japanese or Korean, or Hindi or Arabic for that matter.
> > > > > > > > In the case of Chinese and Japanese (Kanji) (and Korean Hanja if included),
> > > > > > > > the issue further complicates because of the overlap in script/character
> > > > > > > > usage, which could become a fairness issue, as whichever is launched first
> > > > > > > > could take away names available for the latter.  This is also a reason I
> > > > > > > > think perhaps we should distinguish this discussion from "fast" track, but
> > > > > > > > rather look at this IDN Track B as an ongoing track for even future new
> > > > > > > > gTLDs.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Initially, perhaps limiting to non-latin scripts could work.  Limitation to
> > > > > > > > 1 per language per script may be ok too, which I believe is similar to the
> > > > > > > > approach taken by the IDN ccTLD Fast Track.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The EOI seems quite separate to this discussion I think.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Edmon
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > PS. It seems we are gaining some momentum with this discussion.  Perhaps we
> > > > > > > > should schedule a few conference calls to further hash out possible ways
> > > > > > > > forward.  Will start a separate thread on this.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx> 
> > > > > > > > > [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
> > > > > > > > > Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 12:23 AM
> > > > > > > > > To: Avri Doria
> > > > > > > > > Cc: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Process forward [RE: [gnso-idng] restarting discussions on
> > > > > > > > IDN
> > > > > > > > > gTLD]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ... 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