GNSO Initial Report Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains

[zfreud]

Anyone have thoughts on how this might impact DName vs NSpace?

http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/newgtld...01-28jul06.htm

[Rubber Duck]

<<<Term of Reference 1: Recommendations

1. There are two other GNSO policy development processes that have a direct bearing on the work here: the PDP Feb 06 on Policies for Contractual Conditions for Existing TLDs1 and the work which has been undertaken on internationalized domain names (IDNs)2. The final IDN Issues Report was released on 13 July 2006 and can be found at http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/.../msg02677.html. The results of this PDP (since it is in a more advanced stage) will inform the two additional work streams and will need to be taken into account when making final recommendations about the two other PDPs. Some early finding that there are some key principles which are important including consistency of treatment, equitable treatment of registry operators. The PDP Feb 06 will inform and will be co-coordinated with the two additional work streams before the Dec 05 work final report. We do not expect delays.

4. The Washington DC meetings showed that there were additional justifications for introducing new gTLDs including "[a] small TLDs [is] OK if it meets the needs of the community that has put [the idea] forward and doesn't exclude others that are within that community; the new gTLDs introduced so far do not yet cater for parts of the international community that use characters sets other than the limited set from the ASCII character range; a policy is required for the introduction of IDNs at the top level, and [we] need to consider the political and cultural environments as demand for these IDNs is increasing...". Part of this work is being addressed through the IDN Issues Report referred to earlier.

Term of Reference 2: Recommendations

15. Applicants must offer a clearly differentiated domain name space with respect to defining the purpose of the application. The effect of requiring differentiation on IDN top-level domains has not been fully discussed and further input is required. >>>

The above comments suggest to me that introduction of Clone Dot Com registries is a complete red-herring much as I have always stated.

[555]

I Want to make sure i got that right?

OK if it meets the needs of the community that has put [the idea] forward and doesn't exclude others that are within that community

Its ok to allow the country of Bergonia a new tld i.e .BR as long as
1. They specifically asked for it- showed need for it
2. They still will remain within regular world wide web and not seperate themselves from rest (and by that from .com/.net etc...)

The effect of requiring differentiation on IDN top-level domains has not been fully discussed and further input is required. >>>

IF/When a country will ask for its new TLD (as of today none asked for it on top level) it will be discussed and will take time/research etc (long time probably)

[Rubber Duck]

Well the differentiation issue means that the name cannot be just a Clone of something that already exists, unless ICANN are writing in a language other than English.

"and doesn't exclude others that are within that community" effective means countries cannot reasonably expect to take control of gTLDs other than their ccTLD.

If PRC has control of a Chinese version of dot Com as TLD then then the Chinese communities in other countries are by definition excluded. If an Urdu version of dot com were established and awarded to Pakistan where it is the official language more Urdu speakers would be excluded than included.

Which country or group of countries could possibly claim rights over the Arabic Script version of TLD?

[Drewbert]

They're talking gTLD's, not ccTLD's.

ccTLD's get automatic inclusion once certain criteria are met - recognition of country and insertion in ISO table.