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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 24 Nov 2009, at 08:19, Edmon Chung wrote:

> 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.

I still don't understand how this would be the case. 
The root scaling issue, for example, that indicates that nothing should go into 
the root until certain things have happened seems rather absolute to me.  Or do 
you think that it would be possible to get an exemption just as  the IDNccTLDs 
have?

Perhaps there is a way to get around certain of the constraints by agreeing to 
maximal restrictions on Geo name at the second, IPR and restrictions on content 
- is this the sort of remedy you envision for those overarching issues?  It is 
certainly an idea I have head spoken of.


> 
> 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 agree this does seem to be a lost cause.  There is a higher imperative that a 
certain set of IDNccTLDS be put into the root ASAP, and nothing seems to be 
able to change that.

> I feel that we have given that approach a try, I am just hoping we
> could try this other approach now...

What guarantee is there that this accelerating one track won't slow down, or 
block completely, the other track?  If you wanted to stop certain kinds of new 
TLDs, wouldn't this be a good way to go about it - just shunt them over to 
another slower, perhaps infinitely slower, track?

a.