Proposal for a Board Advisory on new gTLDs
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. Is there an interest in quickly putting forth a position that we advocate such methodology and are willing to work with other parts of ICANN to put in place such categories and allow ICANN to QUICKLY allow applications for some classes of TLDs (and I would support including IDN and small cultural TLDs as well as city TLD (the latter only if they are willing to put in place strong controls to inhibit abuse). Alan
Seems like a good idea. BTW, I got back my laptop last night from DELL Korea so I'm in catch-up mode here. I just didn't see the mail inviting us to the Board breakfast, which is why I was absent. Carlton On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
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.
Is there an interest in quickly putting forth a position that we advocate such methodology and are willing to work with other parts of ICANN to put in place such categories and allow ICANN to QUICKLY allow applications for some classes of TLDs (and I would support including IDN and small cultural TLDs as well as city TLD (the latter only if they are willing to put in place strong controls to inhibit abuse).
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
2009/10/29 Alan Greenberg <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.
LOL! You have a 2nd job! On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart < Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> wrote:
And .cat is taken :)
(Do forgive me, just couldn't resist!)
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
(1) -- not to ebe confused with the TLD, ".pussy", which will probably not qualify for express treatment.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
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.
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
Nick Ashton-Hart