[gnso-idng] 2 possible "Tracks" (or types) of IDN gTLDs

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, I think the discussion grew out of the consideration of whether it is
useful to consider 2 tracks (or types... or however you want to call it) of
IDN gTLDs... which goes back to my suggestion of:

Track A: entirely new IDN gTLDs
Track B: IDN gTLDs that "mirrors" existing gTLDs (including then existing
ones... i.e. future new gTLDs)

It seems clear that Track A fits well into the DAG, but the question right
now... I think... is whether DAG handles Track B gracefully.  And I do
believe that Track B will become increasingly important especially when we
consider the hundreds of gTLDs scenario in the future.  Forcing all Track B
types through extended evaluation (even if that even works) may not be the
most efficient nor what we should see implemented.  Having Track B, also, as
far as I can see, does not require any additional policy to be developed,
but rather, an implementation based on the already established policies.
The benefits of having the Track B mechanism, I think definitely outweighs
the costs.... at least in my view.

Edmon





> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Monday, December 7, 2009 10:59 PM
> To: Avri Doria; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] RE: same string registered at 2nd level across
different
> IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]
> 
> 
> Thanks.  As you can tell I had forgotten about that statement.  I
> personally do not think that it will work for us to consider any plan
> that just focuses on existing gTLDs.  If there is any hope of developing
> a plan that might get broad acceptance, it will need to address a
> broader base of interests.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 10:58 AM
> > To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] RE: same string registered at 2nd
> > level across different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking
> > IDN gTLDs]
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6 Dec 2009, at 15:49, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >
> > > Avri - what do you mean by "IDN that might be seen as
> > 'mirroring' incumbent gTLDs"?
> >
> >
> > I meant the discussion that grew out of:
> >
> > > On 20 Nov 2009, at 04:31, Edmon Chung wrote:
> > >
> > >> Based on the above, I can think of 2 possible options or tracks:
> > >>
> > >> ...
> >
> > >> 2. to have a special track for IDN gTLDs that would
> > "mirror" existing
> > >> gTLDs
> > ...
> >
> > cheers
> > a.
> >
> >
> >