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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Note that the complete root-signing process starts next week and is
scheduled to end in July 2010.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams
> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2009 9:27 AM
> To: Avri Doria
> Cc: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] Re: Process forward [RE: [] 
> restarting discussions on IDN gTLD]
> 
> 
> Avri, responding to Edmond, responding to Adrian, responding 
> to Edmond, wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 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?
> 
> 
> The plan of record is that the root will be signed ... next 
> week. Now that may slip... The .gov schedule slipped, though 
> not remarkably, and a slip of several months would not seem 
> to have much significance in the ICANN new gTLD, or the new 
> gTLD IDN PDP, or the new ccTLD IDN PDP, or even the new ccTLD 
> IDN FT contexts.
> 
> Also, the issue was signing before, or after, a step function 
> in size. 
> The addition of O(N/5) entries isn't much more of a step 
> function than the augmentation of the .su entry by O(N/10) 
> entries and the eventual withdrawal of the .su entry, where 
> N=sizeof(IANA_root). It is noise, not signal.
> 
> As to the exemption, or rational, which motivated the Board 
> to vote, it wasn't clear to me that the Board made an 
> "exemption" to any root scaling or other issue, assuming that 
> (a) the root scaling guidance was "no step function in size 
> prior to signing", as well as the more general guidance that 
> "admission control is mandatory to implement", and (b) that 
> expressions by the GNSO Council, such as the one Chuck 
> provided, require exemption.
> 
> If however, the rational is literacy and users, then the 
> rational would be peculiar if limited to ccTLDs.
> 
> If however, the rational is preventing separate roots as 
> alternative mechanisms, or preventing the adoption of "stupid 
> browser tricks" to more markets than Korea and Israel as 
> alternative market areas, or diplomatic requests to the US 
> DoC as alternative processes, then the rational would be 
> peculiar if applied to gTLDs.
> 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 
> In theory at least, the IRT issues are curable. However, as 
> you noted earlier, there are "criticisms that are being used 
> to stall gTLDs in general."
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> >> 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?
> 
> 
> Who's issuing guarantees and what value do they have?
> 
> How does asking for even one application to be accepted rise 
> to the level of blocking all applications from being accepted?
> 
> All or nothing has two possible outcomes.
> 
> Another possibility is that the SO and GAC relationship as 
> authors of policy has changed.
> 
> Eric
>