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

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

I personally don't think we know for sure what the impacts of the
root-scaling study will be.  In my opinion, the DNSSEC first
recommendation is essentially a non-issue because the root will be
signed by July 2010 and there weren't any chances of new gTlDs before
then anyway.  The bigger question is the rate at which new gTLDs can
safely be added.  That's probably going to be a challenge because it is
mostly about various peoples' opinions.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2009 7:57 AM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-idng] Re: Process forward [RE: [] restarting 
> discussions on IDN gTLD]
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
>