![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/acab9df0f92a1d87d505cdca3677f11f.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
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 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
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/21cfbce914d7e30e5d906dec1a9a4eb8.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
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 present 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 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
![](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
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b90048f2bfa1fb043625de7955dfdda6.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
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
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/21cfbce914d7e30e5d906dec1a9a4eb8.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
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
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/98ca48fb917f289f499a3db6d27b8b4f.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
I think Stéphane is on the money here. In my view the solution, sought by Edmon, is to break out the non contentious IDN gTLD's (or to assume that none of them will be contentious - which is a horrible assumption). I am not sure you can 'piece meal' the issue. Clearly the retarding factor is the IP and Trademark issues. Are we assuming these will not exist in an IDN gTLD? If it is plausible to pull the TLD's not infringing on the issues above in IDN gTLD's then surely the same can be said for non IDN gTLD's. If you want to push this then perhaps a "non contentious gTLD Fast Track" that is both inclusive of IDN's and non IDN strings is the solution... I for one, will not be defining "non contentious". I think the Board has previously illustrated a propensity to want to avoid this situation which seemed reasonable then and still seems reasonable to now. Let's take care of the IP and Trademark issues "quick sticks" and move onward and upward! Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, 20 March 2009 8:15 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Edmon Chung; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] IDN gTLD Fast Track discussion 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
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3f1f7e3cc0afc2f69fa0244c9617a781.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
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, if it means 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 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
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/21cfbce914d7e30e5d906dec1a9a4eb8.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
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, if it means 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 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
![](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
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/21cfbce914d7e30e5d906dec1a9a4eb8.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Understood. Thanks for that Chuck. Stéphane Le 20/03/09 15:44, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@verisign.com> a écrit :
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
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3f1f7e3cc0afc2f69fa0244c9617a781.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Hello Chuck,
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.
Yes that is right. From memory the GNSO never really created an "open" category. But when you read the guidebook there are effectively three categories being discussed - ie there are different rules that apply to those three categories. This is apparent because the requirements to complete the application are different (e.g for geo names you need to provide a letter from the relevant public authority etc). I don't believe that adding more categories in this round actually makes anything go faster - each category typically kicks off a year or more of discussion. Regards, Bruce
participants (5)
-
Adrian Kinderis
-
Bruce Tonkin
-
Edmon Chung
-
Gomes, Chuck
-
Stéphane Van Gelder