It was indeed thoroughly investigated in years past. And at least some of those who participated in that discussion (before my time) feel that if the original discussion had been held with the knowledge we have today, the answer may well have been different. Alan At 28/10/2009 08:51 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
2009/10/29 Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> said:
For a long time, I have been advocating not trying to solve all of the gTLD problems but rather releasing categories of gTLDs where the problems can be readily addressed (either because of the type of gTLD or because the applicant is willing to agree to sepecific measures to address the potential problems.
This has typically been a VERY unpopular position to take in public.
At this meeting, in both public and private discussions, the concept is receiving wide acceptance.
FWIW, it was the main topic of my table at the Board breakfast. Board members even suggested the informal name "pussycat" domains (1) to describe applications that would qualify for the "express lane", so to speak, Kurt Pritz was at my table and did not provide any counter arguments. It seems possible that this is indeed worth advancing. There was an acknowledgement that, while this may have been a ninstarter before, there have been sufficient lessons learned from previous application rounds. ICANN now has a better idea of the criteria that could indicate an express-worthy application.
- Evan
(1) -- not to ebe confused with the TLD, ".pussy", which will probably not qualify for express treatment.