![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b90048f2bfa1fb043625de7955dfdda6.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
I can't speak for Bruce but I suspect his 'other' category is the 'open' category. The Guidebook doesn't actually treat 'geographic' as a class in the same sense as 'community-based' or 'open' gTLD but Staff has expanded the restrictions on geographic names beyond what the GNSO recommended and there is still discussions between the Board and the GAC, but I think that mainly concerns 2nd-level geographic names. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:19 AM To: Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] IDN gTLD Fast Track discussion
Hi Bruce,
I agree there is a clear difficulty in defining a non-contentious TLD. That is what I was saying in my previous email, and trying to do so clearly has us running the risk of ending up with "purposely-designed" non contentious TLDs so that their applicants can go first.
However, I also think there is a logic behind the class or "type" breakdown that Edmun and others have suggested. The problem, once again, is that everyone tends to preach for their own religion and wants their class of choice to be recognized as the one to go first.
There was a lot of talk about types of TLDs in Mexico and I don't think we can simply brush those ideas aside, even though once again I agree that they do create a lot of potential issues.
On your final comment, I was not aware that there are 3 categories already. I thought a TLD could only be a community or open application, i.e. if you're not a community based application, you're open. Can you tell me a little more about this third "other" class please? How are the applications that are neither community nor open and thus, I suppose, go into this other class, defined?
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 20/03/09 02:02, « Bruce Tonkin » <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> a écrit :
Hello Stéphane,
I actually think it makes a lot of sense to allow non-contentious TLDs a way forward before the mainstream new TLD launch,
TLDs that present more complicated issues get ironed out properly while at the same time not delaying the others.
The problem becomes in defining "non-contentious TLDs".
Even IDN-ccTLDs have issues around their contributions to costs and their commitment to adhere to IDNA standards.
Every TLD applicant that I have come across claims that
if it means their TLD is
"non-contentious".
ICANN's experience with trying to manage a specific category (Sponsored in 2004) was not successful. By setting up one group to go forward early - you just increase the commercial incentives around trying to show that your application is in that category.
The new gTLD process itself already has three categories - geographic, community, and other.
Regards, Bruce