RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

Michele Neylon wrote:
> 
> On 24 Mar 2010, at 00:29, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> 
> > 
> > To clarify, the same restrictions in com, net, org are also 
> in biz, info, name and all of the unsponsored tlds.  I find 
> it hard to justify using a sponsored community contract as a 
> baselie, unless we want to say that only community-based TLDs 
> may have any for of integration...which is also an option.
> 
> And would that be a bad thing?
> 
> (not that I'm saying it's a good thing either .. just asking .. )
> 

I think that Michele's question is right on target. One of the outcomes of
this WG is exactly to give an answer to questions like these.
Let me elaborate a bit more.
I (personally, but I might be wrong) do not believe that we have already a
solution that is more "palatable" to most of us. Quite the contrary, I
believe that we have quite controversial positions, that range from
"absolutely no separation" to "strict separation", going through
articulation on "what does separation really mean".
In this context, if we could define cases in which separation will bring
benefits, as it supposedly did originally for .com, and cases in which it
would be an obstacle, like supposedly for small "niche" TLDs, we would
achieve progress.
So the question on whether community-based TLDs have a business need to be
treated differently from general-purpose TLDs does make a lot of sense.

Cheers,
Roberto