Q53: Should proposals choose a single proposed TLD or numerous possibilities?A53:
It will help if there will be one TLD per proposal, and an upper limit on the number
of proposals an entity can propose.
The proposals with all the English dictionary
(or other language) are unlikely to be serious anyhow.
Q54: Should ICANN select
the TLD labels, should they be proposed by the applicants for new TLD registries,
or should they be chosen by a consultative process between the applicants and ICANN?
A54:
Selected by the applicant, in this initial phase.
Q55: Should there be minimum
or maximum length requirements for TLD codes? Are restrictions appropriate to avoid
possible future conflicts with ISO 3166-1 codes?
A55: The conflict with ISO-3166
codes shall be avoided by all means.
This could be accomplished by dedicating
the 2-chars-labels to identification of Countries and Territories. Considering that
the ISO-3166 lists are dynamic, this would mean to act in co-ordination between ICANN
and ISO.
I would suggeest that the delegation of "TLDs defined by some geographic
region, but not qualifying as ccTLDs under current policies", as possibility envisaged
in the document, be done only subject to acceptance (or at least no objection) by
ISO-3166/MA to the use of the string a TLD.
In practical terms, this will mean
that the 2-char-code will exist in ISO-3166 lists, at least as reserved code, because
I seriously doubt that ISO-3166/MA will allow deployment of a TLD code that may conflict
in the future with their own codes. But, in any case, they will have the final authority
to decide.
Q56: Should there be restrictions on the types of TLD labels that
are established (for example, a prohibition of country names)?
A56: I would not
put formal unnecessary restrictions.
The applicants know anyhow that the more
controversial the TLD proposed, the less chances to see it delegated.
Q57:
What should be the criteria for selecting between potential TLD labels? Should non-English
language TLD labels be favored?
A57: Not necessarily be favored, but also not excluded.
If
some entity comes with a good business case for a non-English string, why not? On
the other hand, if this does not happen, ICANN should not be in a hurry to delegate
a bad string just because it is not English.
Q61: Which types, if any, are
essential to the successful testing period?
A61: Both unrestricted and chartered.
Incidentally,
it should be noted that the case 2. is fully equivalent to case 1.: if adherence
to the semantic meaning is not enforced, the population will be less and less representative
of the initially wished semantic meaning. E.g. .org, exactly ;>).