Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] URGENT Review of Updated Wiki

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Cintra, Evan,
In 3.0, in the third set of bullet points "The Application must NOT 
have any of the following characeristics:", there is one I thought 
we'd made clearer -- geographic names. I thought that we'd decided 
that what we'd meant earler when we discussed this idea was that city 
names were not what we wanted to support, but that "africa" was not a 
kind of name we did not want to support (sorry for the double negative).
The broadest application of a geographic name exclusion would 
eliminate an application for Dinetah (the name of the Navajo Nation as 
a place, in the Dine language).
I suggest we change "A string that is, or is based on, a geographic 
name" to "A string that is, or is based on, a city name".
In 3.1.3 - Operation in an emerging market or nation, I'm still 
uncomfortable with the use of category 722, which contains Singapore 
and most other entries are either (a) several multiples greater GNP 
than Haiti, or (b) unlikely to contain a community unserved or 
underserved by the associated ccTLD. I've the same concern (b), 
unlikely to contain a community unserved or underserved by the 
associated ccTLD, with the use of category 432. Finally, the 
micro-capabilities of the entire economies meeting the definition for 
category 199, "Least Developed" is another concern.
In a nutshell, I'm concerned that the capture of .nu, .tv, .cc, .co, 
.ws, ... will be repeated.
I discussed this in three emailing to the list on 4/24:
* A comment on the use of category 199 (Least developed countries) as 
a criteria,
* A comment on the use of category 432 (Landlocked Developing 
Countries) as a criteria, and
* A comment on the use of category 722 (Small Island Developing 
States) as a criteria
Also in 3.1.3 - Operation in an emerging market or nation, I offered 
an item #5, not currently present, to address the issue of 
applications by groups such as the Romi (primarily in Europe) or other 
stateless populations.
This was: "Applications by linguistic minorities protected by treaties 
such as the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and 
the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of 
National Minorities."
In 4.3.3 - IPv6 Support, there is a duplicate line.

Eric