Re: Process forward [RE: [gnso-idng] restarting discussions on IDN gTLD]
For what it's worth, I'm in full agreement with Mike's previous statements. Stéphane Le 24 nov. 2009 à 19:47, Mike Rodenbaugh a écrit : > > 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 > > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|