Re: Process forward [RE: [gnso-idng] restarting discussions on IDN gTLD]
Sorry Eric, I don't mean to suggest you shouldn't ask anything else. Please do
so!
I was simply frustrated at my own apparent lack of clarity and my inability to
get my message across.
Your latest question seems to highlight this fact, as I am in fact very much in
favour of the GNSO's position that gs should be released at about the same time
as IDN ccs (I don't recall the RySG's position on the matter, but as this is
not my SG anyway, I won't comment on it). I am sorry that my previous message
led you to understand exactly the opposite. Please note however that the way
you seem to be characterizing the GNSO's position on this seems wrong. The
GNSO's position is no limited to IDN gs.
Once again, Eric, please do not hesitate to come back with further questions. I
will endeavor to answer as quickly and as clearly as I can, and certainly do
not want to stifle discussions.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 23 nov. 2009 à 15:18, Eric Brunner-Williams a écrit :
> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>
Attachment:
smime.p7s
|