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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Eric.  I do not want to get into defining 'single-registrant TLD' or
estimating market demand. I am just pointing out that, if there is some
consensus that various tracks might be desirable, there is certain to be a
huge debate about prioritization.  I recall this was recognized long ago,
when I first got formally involved in the new TLD PDP (a 'Task Force'
meeting in MDR), and ultimately was embodied in the GNSO's policy
recommendations which did not include any sort of silos or other
prioritization scheme.  

The later Council resolutions were dealing with differing tracks between
gTLDs and ccTLDs, not differing tracks within gTLDs.  The Council was
addressing a situation it could not control, with ccTLDs, rather than any
situation purportedly within GNSO's policy ambit.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 9:52 AM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Process forward [RE: [gnso-idng] restarting discussions on IDN
gTLD]

Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
> Speaking personally, ... 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.


While I'm glad to see that the pre-delegation approach of .museum and 
..coop, and for the first two years, of .cat, have achieved some 
recognition for their design purposes -- persistent prevention of 
harms, I wonder if you could speculate on the number of businesses 
likely to put in applications for single-registrant TLDs, assuming 
these businesses know that their applications have first priority, and 
that ICANN has a finite capacity, and the general rule is "first come, 
first served"? I have one single-registrant RFP in my hands today, and 
we don't exactly seek them out, so I've no idea.

Next, with that number assumed, if there is a limitation on the number 
of changes in the root zone in any period of time, say the 
hypothetical ICANN-application-window-year, and that limitation is 
100, as Thomas Narten conjectured, how many years after 
single-registrant applications would community-based applications wait?

This is an N/100 = Y question. You know N, I want to know Y. Pun 
accidental.

Next, would it be fair to assume that some more single-registrant 
applications would be submitted in the second hypothetical 
ICANN-application-window-year, and if there were more 
single-registrant applications for the first window than the number 
Thomas conjectured, leaving some first year single-registrant 
applications not yet delegated in the second year, that the same 
result might also occur, with some second, or even first year 
single-registrant applications not delgated at the end of the second year?

In what year would the first community-based application be accepted, 
in the plan you've sketched out?


> ...   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.


Could you suggest how the Council's policy statement, courtesy Chuck, 
here:

* IDN-labeled TLDs (whether considered gTLDs or TLDs associated with 
countries territories) should be introduced as soon as practicable 
after technical requirements and tests are successfully completed.
* The introduction of IDN-labeled gTLDs or ccTLDs should not be 
delayed because of lack of readiness of one category, but if they are 
not introduced at the same time, steps should be taken so that neither 
category is advantaged or disadvantaged, and procedures should be 
developed to avoid possible conflicts.

In particular the "... but if ... steps should be ..." language of the 
2nd point, with your view? Does the "long time ago" determination that 
various tracks were not workable mean the 31 July 2008 determination 
is without meaning? If not, what do you think it means?

Thanks for your time too Mike,
Eric