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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

If the only difference between the way self-designated community TLDs
and other TLDs are treated is the self-imposed restrictions on
registrations, then what's currently in the guidebook may be fine. But
if community TLDs get any other special consideration in their contracts
or otherwise, then all such applications *must* go through an analysis
similar to the comparative evaluation to determine that they are indeed
community based. That's all I am saying. 

Right now, I could apply for .fun and claim community of funeral service
providers and users. I could describe restrictions on registrations as
requiring registrants to be funeral directors, casket manufacturers, and
families of deceased. If there is no other applicant for .fun, then no
evaluation of my claims are made under the current guidebook rules. My
contract would be the same as other gTLDs except it would include my
registration restrictions.

That may be an extreme example, but you get the idea. That may not be a
big deal if there are no other special consideration given to community
TLDs, but if there is then additional review of those applicants should
be done.


Tim 
 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing
From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 10:13 am
To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>, Roberto
Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>, "Neuman,Jeff"
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>


Tim,

No application goes to auction if it is not part of a contention set.

All applications which self-designate as a "community-based"
application are subject to additional restriction.

So ... you're concerned that .unlikely won't be in a contention set,
so it goes to contract, and exploits some hypothetical VI cutout, or
that .unlikely will be in a contention set, and meet the criteria for
comparative evaluation, and prevails over others in the contention
set, and then exploits some hypothetical VI cutout.

But it is gaming the hypothetical VI cutout, not the community
criteria, in the presence of the additional restriction.

How do you suggest the DAG be changed to eliminate the scenario you
have in mind, which I may still be misunderstanding?

Eric