Thanks Chuck. If the issue is competitive advantage, then I don't understand the rationale behind pursuing only one fast-track program, for a very specific category of TLDs, and not others. This would give IDN gTLDs a competitive advantage. So in my view, the issue really is one of complication rather than competitive advantage because, whatever the fast-track, if there is one then by definition the applicants eligible for it are given a competitive advantage or at least they get the possibility of an early start. The reason why these fast-tracks are being looked into has more to do with the idea that "simple" TLDs shouldn't be delayed by "complicated" ones as I see it. But I agree that at this point, you really need to have a clear measure of what makes a "simple" TLD. One presumes it is a TLD which poses no real validation issues, but how can you tell? There are some classes of TLDs that do seem to fit this category, including GeoTLDs, but once again, specifics are hard to define here. Stéphane Le 19/03/09 20:17, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@verisign.com> a écrit :
Stephane,
Please see my responses below.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:59 AM To: Edmon Chung; 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] IDN gTLD Fast Track discussion
Edmon,
Would it not be difficult to argue for an IDN gTLD fast track if no such mechanism is also planned for other non-contentious subcategories of new TLDs?
Chuck: The reason for considering the possibility of an IDN gtLD fast track is to deal with the possibility that the IDN fast track ccTLDs will be ready before the gTLD process and hence to remove any competitive advantage that the ccTLDs might gain if they went first.
There was a lot of discussion on the possibility of increasing the number of TLD categories in Mexico and my feeling was that staff wasn't in favour. I could be wrong of course...
I actually think it makes a lot of sense to allow non-contentious TLDs a way forward before the mainstream new TLD launch, if it means TLDs that present more complicated issues get ironed out properly while at the same time not delaying the others.
Chuck: The issue as I understand it is primarily competitive advantage, not level of complication. Besides, how would we know in advance what is contentious and not?
Thanks,
Stéphane Van Gelder
Le 19/03/09 12:17, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@dotasia.org> a écrit :
Hi Everyone,
Following up on the discussion we had during our wrap up meeting in Mexico, would like to share some thoughts on a possible IDN
From the discussion at that meeting as well as conversations during and after Mexico, it seems like there are a few items that could form a starting point for constructive discussion towards a
gTLD Fast Track concept. possible IDN gTLD Fast Track:
1. The New gTLD schedule should not be delayed by an IDN gTLD Fast Track 2. The IDN ccTLD Fast Track schedule should not be
IDN gTLD Fast Track 3. An IDN gTLD Fast Track should be viewed as a backup plan should the New gTLD schedule be further delayed
delayed by an 4. Work on
an IDN gTLD Fast Track should begin in preparation for the case that the New gTLD schedule is further delayed 5. The IDN gTLD Fast Track, if implemented, should: - follow closely the process of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track - aim to introduce "a limited number of non-contentious" IDN gTLDs - be based on the GNSO New gTLD Final Report, including the IDN WG outcomes report (i.e. should not require additional policy development) - encourage stronger protection of rights of others
I think we would be allocating some time to discuss the issue in our upcoming conference call meeting. Would love to get some feedback and thoughts on the above items before our meeting.
Wondering what people think about the above points...
Edmon