Re: [gnso-idng] phone question

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

wow, quite a rhetorical presentation.


On 3 Dec 2009, at 01:27, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>> ... I personally would be against giving some special application status to 
>> ...
> 
> 
> On the call you observed twice that in theory all things are equal. That 
> interested me.

I would have to check out the recording so see if I really said that 'in theory 
all things are equal' .  Seems a nice platitude and I hope I did not argue for 
it too loudly.

What i think i was arguing (or at least hope) was the same, was that the 
concerns over adding new TLDS to the root was, or should be, the same for all 
TLDS, ccTLDs, and new gTLDS whether they have internal champions or not.  And 
that the other overriding concerns, like the one for the protection of IP 
holders, and maybe even others, should be the same whether the TLDs were IDN or 
not IDN.  

I did admit that the constraints for a 'supported' style of TLD were different 
then those for a general style of TLD.  But would argue that there was no 
intent to give supported style preference in the process.  If the GNSO now 
wishes to go back on its recommendations and give greater support to the 
'supported' style of TLDs, then let it begin that process.  Yes, those who like 
the supported model have been arguing for its superiority since the beginning, 
and perhaps you were right, but that is not the policy that was recommended.  
What I do argue is that supported vs general works the same whether IDN or LDH.

What I am saying is that all registries (new and existing) should have the same 
chance at time 0 in the  application process.

I think all have to show they are technically competent - but all do not need 
to show they have same high degree of competence Core has unless they want to 
run an operations the size and scope of Core.

I think all have to show they have a viable business plan - but all do not need 
to show they have same high degree of business capacity Core has unless they 
want to run an operations the size and scope of Core.

i think all have to show they have a plan to fight malicious use - but all do 
not need to show they have same plan Core has ....

I agree that it is useful to offer a hint to the reviewers that some applicant 
is applying for several related TLDS, and asked whether this was not possible 
in some "any extra information the evaluators should have' section of the 
application.

I never said the obverse you are attribution to me:
- never said no existing until a diversity goal is met.
- never said incumbent can't apply until the new have been given a chance.

But rather did say, or mean to say, that all should have an equal chance to be 
reviewed against the base level requirements for their application at the 
beginning of the review process - and that no incumbent be given more of a leg 
up then they already have by being experienced players in the game or by being 
Northern institutions with all the advantages that brings.  

I did not suggest an affirmative action plan to support registries from 
disadvantaged areas or developing nations (at least not as part of this 
discussion) - though I expect there are those who would in the GAC and in the 
NCSG and do find it an interesting idea that perhaps should be explore - 
especially if we are going to talk about opening up an earlier track for 
special applicants.  Thank you for bringing it up.

What I also did not bring up, though perhaps should have, is the concern by 
some in developing areas that the Geopolitical Northern registries were going 
to grab all of the opportunities for good Southern IDNTLDS and colonialize the 
IDN name space before the local populations had a chance to apply in a fair and 
open process.  It is all well and good that we want to do the right thing for 
the future IDN registrants, but some may be suspect of the pure benevolence of 
our motives.  Why should the rich registries of the North have a chance to 
apply for an IDN before the GAC's concern about fees that are prohibitive for 
the South can be adequately responded to?

a.


> 
> Please explain how ...
> 
> intentionally failing to distinguish between applicants which presently met 
> all technical requirements, a more stringent existence, as well as security 
> and stability test than mere possession of an iso3166-1 associated delegation 
> into the IANA root, and those which have not met any technical requirements,
> 
> and
> 
> intentionally failing to distinguish between applicants which presently met 
> all business requirements, a more stringent existence, as well as continuity 
> test than mere possession of an iso3166-1 associated delegation into the IANA 
> root, and those which have not met any business requirements,
> 
> and
> 
> intentionally failing to distinguish between applicants which seek to obtain 
> one or more non-Latin Script equivalences to an existing Latin Script entry 
> in the IANA root, exactly as the ccTLD IDN FT participants are seeking,
> 
> and
> 
> intentionally failing to distinguish between applicants which have existing 
> non-Latin IDN registrants, and those which have no registrants,
> 
> and
> 
> intentionally failing to distinguish between applicants which have existing 
> abusive registration policies and those which have no registrants,
> 
> and
> 
> intentionally failing to distinguish between applicants which have no 
> substantial abusive registrations, and those which have substantial abusive 
> registrations,
> 
> helps arrive at a "is not disadvantaged" position.
> 
> While I take the point you made later in the call that diversity is not met 
> by allocating IDNs to existing registry contract holders, the converse, that 
> no IDN shall be created until a diversity goal amongst contract holders, or 
> more weakly, until a N+1 registry contract exists, where N is the number of 
> current registry contracts (counting .post), places the utility of IDN below 
> the utility of diversity of contract holders, or the utility of creating an 
> N+1th contract.
> 
> Is this why we have IDNs? To force the N+1th contract? To force the first 
> contract outside of North America and Europe? I don't think so.
> 
> Eric