![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/acab9df0f92a1d87d505cdca3677f11f.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
-----Original Message----- From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:59 PM 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?
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
more complicated issues get ironed out properly while at the same time not delaying the others.
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 gTLD Fast Track concept. 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
Hi Stéphane, I think that is a good point. However, I think it makes most sense to follow closely the path that has already been blazed through by the ccNSO, and that focusing on IDN gTLDs would get us further quicker. I do not disagree with also starting work on other "categories" (parenthesis important because I think IDN should not be "categorized" as such... i.e. there are "categories" of IDN gTLDs as well). However, I think if we have one focused WG we can achieve the results in a quick schedule. And personally, I think the work that has already been done for IDN ccTLDs can be largely reused to benefit an IDN gTLD fast track. Also, we already have a comprehensive body of documentation on IDN, especially based on the policy development work already done for the new gTLD process on the subject (especially in the IDN WG and actually in other parts of the new gTLD final report). If a "category" of gTLD is to be separately furthered, such specific policy development may (or may not) need to be discussed as a policy development matter (whereas there is no further policy development required for IDN essentially, all could be contained within implementation matters). As a separate project, I am happy to contribute to a process (which may look different from the "fast track") to look into possibly moving some "categories" of new gTLDs forward as well, however, I feel that is a much different conversation. Lumping them together would, I believe, confuse the matter and be disadvantageous for both directive. Edmon present point
for constructive discussion towards a 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 delayed by an 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 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