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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Speaking personally, I do not see any merit to changing course now and
creating parallel tracks for new gTLDs.  From my perspective, IDN gTLDs (vis
a vis ASCII gTLDs) have just as much if not more possibility for all of the
sorts of harms we are trying to prevent in all gTLDs.  So-called 'single
registrant' TLDs have the least likelihood of such harms, so if anything
they should be allowed first.  Next in line would be community-based TLDs
(ASCII or IDN), as they have proven to resist those sorts of harms to date.


Somewhere far down the line would be IDN equivalents of existing gTLDs, and
then the completely open and unrestricted new TLDs (ASCII or IDN).  None of
those should launch until there are agreed solutions to the harms that have
been exacerbated by most of the existing gTLDs to date.  I think we are
getting close to agreement on those solutions, and to now try to divide up
the gTLD universe will just cause more headache and delay.  The Council
agreed a long time ago that various gTLD 'tracks' were not workable, so I do
not see how they are any more workable now, at this late date in the policy
process.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104
(415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Edmon Chung
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 5:20 AM
To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Process forward [RE: [gnso-idng] restarting discussions on IDN
gTLD]


Hi Adrian,

You may have missed some of the earlier discussions.  I have in no way said
that the overarching issues do not apply.
In fact in the summary I mentioned, I specifically said that the overarching
issues must be addressed if any implementation plan is to be proposed.

The question however is whether focused discussion on a particular type of
TLD (in this case IDN gTLD) would help in fact speed up the overall process
by resolving the issues in different tracks.

Your opinion is that it might not help.  I am not convinced that it is
necessarily the case.  You equally said that we could still see IDN ccTLDs
and IDN gTLDs introduced within a reasonable time frame if we did NOT spend
time further on this discussion and stay focused on the full new gTLD
process.  I feel that we have given that approach a try, I am just hoping we
could try this other approach now...

Edmon




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 6:15 PM
> To: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Process forward [RE: [gnso-idng] restarting discussions on
IDN
> gTLD]
> 
> Edmon et al,
> 
> Once again I think I may be missing something here?
> 
> How do the overarching issues that are currently being resolved by the
> Community not apply to IDN gTLD's?
> 
> How do root scaling, registry/ registrar separation, trademark protection,
> malicious conduct and economic analysis not matter?
> 
> I just made the same observation in this blog with respect to IDN ccTLD's
> (http://www.ausregistry.com/blog/?p=224)
> 
> Perhaps you can explain how these overarching issues are NOT your problem
in
> IDN gTLD's.
> 
> For what it is worth, I am not convinced that any dilution or separation
of the
> process to accommodate any TLD (IDN, geographic or otherwise) is in
anyone's
> interests.
> 
> Let's focus ours, and importantly staff's efforts on getting to the finish
line,
> instead of creating more work for ourselves (this same logic could be
applied to
> the EoI also!). I would not support this idea going forward.
> 
> Adrian Kinderis
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 November 2009 5:39 PM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Process forward [RE: [gnso-idng] restarting discussions on
IDN
> gTLD]
> 
> 
> In a different light, I think it is important that we also focus on the
> registrants and even more importantly the general Internet user.  That is
> what ICANN should concern itself about.  Providing a full IDN experience
is
> what the "market" needs and is what end users want.  This to me is a
rather
> clear and consistent message, especially from the recent discussions
sparked
> by ICANN's PR and also during IGF as well.
> 
> That being said, market advantage for registries should not be taken
> lightly.  Our continued position was that IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs should
be
> introduced at the same time.  That is also one perspective to look at the
> issue.  In balancing the interests, that is sort of why I have suggested
the
> Track A/Track B approach, where Track B, even if implemented earlier would
> not have created new registrant markets that do not already exist, thereby
> reducing to a minimum the concern for market advantage.
> 
> In any case, the discussion here is probably not the specifics of what
> process / tracks are being produced, but whether or not an implementation
> team should be formed to look into it (although admittedly they are
> inter-related).
> 
> In trying to summarize the discussion thus far, I wonder if we can say the
> following:
> - There is definite interest to explore a possible mechanism to introduce
> IDN gTLDs as soon as possible
> - There is likely going to be delays in the full new gTLD process (based
on
> the last known proposed schedule)
> - There is continued interest to work towards minimizing the time lag
> between the introduction of IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs
> - Implementation plans, if any, must address the issue of first-to-market
> advantage
> - Implementation plans, if any, must address the identified new gTLD
issues
> including overarching issues
> 
> 
> Thoughts?...
> 
> Edmon
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
> > Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 3:30 AM
> > To: Eric Brunner-Williams
> > Cc: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: Process forward [RE: [gnso-idng] restarting discussions on
> IDN
> > gTLD]
> >
> > I'm not thinking so much of a possible comparison between a .paris and a
> .ile-de-
> > france, which would probably be able to run within the same track, but
> rather
> > between say a regional TLD and a company TLD (if single-owner), which
the
> latest
> > CORE comments for example seem to suggest should not run at the same
time
> > (Werner's comments: single-registrant TLDs ... should not be allowed in
> the
> > coming round).
> >
> > Stéphane
> >
> >
> > Le 23 nov. 2009 à 19:07, Eric Brunner-Williams a écrit :
> >
> > > Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> > >> The market I am referring to is the registrant market. What I mean is
> the first to
> > be in a position to go through the ICANN application process. i.e., if
you
> are a
> > prospective TLD applicant and your application window opens a year after
> > someone else's, you have a to-market disadvantage.
> > >
> > > Thanks again for your patience. I'm still having some difficulty
> understanding
> > the importance of application submission, when the thing sold is
domains,
> which
> > could take between 6 months and 24 months after the application window
> closes,
> > depending on the innate characteristics of the applications.
> > >
> > > "If your application window opens a year after someone else's, you
have
> a to-
> > market disadvantage."
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't see how a .paris in 1Q10 creates a to-market disadvantage to
> anyone,
> > except perhaps a .il-de-france in 2Q10 or later, should such an
> application
> > actually exist.
> > >
> > > I don't see how a .shoe in January creates a to-market disadvantage to
> anyone,
> > except perhaps a .sock in December, should such an application actually
> exist.
> > >
> > > I'm sure there's a nugget of truth in your assertion, I simply think
the
> claim
> > you're making could be narrowed to be generally true, rather than
> generally false.
> > >
> > > Perhaps, any ".com-like .thingie" creates a to-market disadvantage to
> any
> > otherwise indistinguishable ".com-like .other-thingie", if the ..com-like
> .thingie
> > precedes the .com-like .other-thingie.
> > >
> > > That seems a likely to be true statement, possibly even true where one
> of the
> > thingies, or both, are IDN, whereas the ordering of Paris or Barcelona
and
> > some .com-like .thingie-or-another, in ASCII or not, seems likely to be
> false.
> > >
> > > I hope you can address the registrar interest in any restriction on
the
> inventories
> > the RAA enables.
> > >
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > >> Stéphane
> > >> Le 23 nov. 2009 à 16:12, Eric Brunner-Williams a écrit :
> > >>> Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> > >>>> Sorry Eric, I don't mean to suggest you shouldn't ask anything
else.
> Please
> > do so!
> > >>> OK.
> > >>>
> > >>> 1. Are you using "first to market advantage" meaning
> > >>> (a) first to offer inventory through RAA sales channels, or
> > >>> (b) first to offer something else?
> > >>>
> > >>> If (b), could you explain what the market is, what is bought and
sold
> in it, that
> > kind of thing, and what the advantage is in that market?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> 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.
> > >>>
> > >>> I only have an observer's knowledge of the Council's position, but
the
> act of
> > asserting the desirability of a similar period of availability for ccTLD
> IDNs, the
> > ccTLD IDN FT excluded, and gTLD IDNs, without explicit reference to also
> the
> > same period of availability for gTLD ASCII, creates the possibility of
> sequential,
> > not simultaneous ordering of events.
> > >>>
> > >>> It is hypothetical, but if the Council had two alternatives, one to
> allow gTLD
> > IDNs "today" and gTLD ASCIIs "tomorrow", and the other to allow gTLD
IDNs
> > "tomorrow" and gTLD ASCIIs "tomorrow", it seems possible that they might
> settle
> > on the first choice, as "tomorrow" might be several years from "today".
> > >>>
> > >>> If your recollection of the Council's position on this issue is
> correct, then
> > other than technical nits, such as table consistency, there is no reason
> for this list
> > to exist, as there could be no policy  with Council support that would
> differentiate
> > IDNs offered under a registry contract and ASCIIs offered under the same
> > contract.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> 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.
> > >>>
> > >>> Well, I do have one more, touching on SG positions. As a registrar
> (USA
> > Webhost and CORE), I'd like to offer more RAA restricted inventory
> _today_.
> > >>>
> > >>> How is it in the interests of the members of the RSG to advocate
that
> there
> > be no more RAA restricted inventory _today_?
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't mind selling Chuck's or Jeff's or Hal's existing product
using
> my
> > RAAs, I'd just like to know why it is in my advantage as a registrar not
> to be able
> > to sell more of their, or anyone else's product, using my RAAs.
> > >>>
> > >>> Eric
> > >>>
> > >>>> 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
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
>