Fast Track back in the Slow Lane

[Rubber Duck]

http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-26nov08-en.htm

This would appear to have zero impact on IDN.gTLDs, so perhaps a good thing? :)

[Wot]

Is it not the "updated updated updated updated draft Implementation Plan---" that may be significant?

Or not enough "updated" :rolleyes:

[bwhhisc]

PAGE 28...not much has changed, and they are continuing to keep the new .idn "confidential" for the moment.

7.4 Discussion of Contention Issues with Existing TLDs and new gTLD Applications

Through the implementation efforts of the Fast Track process and the process for introduction of new gTLDs, a potential for contention has been identified between Fast Track requested IDN ccTLD strings and:

- Existing gTLD strings
- Existing ccTLD strings
- Proposed strings in new gTLD applications

These contention issues can be either that two or more strings are identical or so confusingly similar that they cannot coexist in the DNS. Some cases will be covered as the process for introduction of new gTLDs requires government support if the proposed string represents a country or a territory. However, there could be rare cases where an applied generic string is identical or confusingly similar to a requested IDN ccTLD string, without the gTLD string being submitted for the same purpose as the IDN ccTLD string.

This issue is made more complex by the fact that Fast Track requests are onfidential until the end of the request and evaluation stage (see Module 5) while all applications in the New gTLD Process are public as soon as the application period closes. Efforts should be invested in both the Fast Track and the New gTLD Process to ensure ongoing and efficient communications between the participants in these processes at all stages to identify potential issues as early as possible in order to achieve a timely prevention or resolution of any issue.

At this stage of the planning process ICANN staff seeks further input and guidance from the community to shape mechanisms that will help minimize the possible occurrence of such contentions and effectively deal with any that could occur. END

[sbe18]

I realize the language is vague....

But my take is:

if someone is stupid enough to try to apply for an IDN.IDN GTLD that is
confusingly similar to a IDN.IDN ccTLD or would appear to be 'phish' on an
existing ASCII GTLD....it will be declined.

Additionally, it is COMPLETELY up to Verisign whether they want to
go with 1 or 100 IDN.IDN gtld (dname aliases) for dot com or dot net.

Again....it is immaterial...
dot com can be typed uninhibited in all the new browsers...and most importantly on the mobile web browsers....

So fine.....Verisign will throw a brick through the registrar window and charge me 25 cents to a $1 more per name.....fine....

I am expecting this BS in 2010 at the earliest.
Steve

[Miguel]

So far either/or worked perfectly well for Mandarin/Cantonese.

[Wot]

So far either/or worked perfectly well for Mandarin/Cantonese.


Cantonese?